IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.678 of 2010 1. SABITA DEVI @ SABITA KUMARI W/O SRI SHAMBHU PRASAD SAH R/O VILL.- THAHRA, P.O.+P.S.- MAKER, DISTT.- SARAN AT CHAPRA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPTT., GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, SARAN AT CHAPRA 3. THE DISTRICT TEACHER APPOINTMENT APPELLATE AUTHORITY, SARAN AT CHAPRA THROUGH ITS MEMBER 4. THE MEMBER OF THE DISTRICT TEACHERS APPOINTMENT APPELLATE AUTHORITY, SARAN AT CHAPRA 5. MRS. GUNJAN KUMARI D/O SRI KEDAR SINGH, W/O SHRI BIPIN BIHARI R/O VILL.- THAHARA, P.O.+P.S. MAKER, DISTT.- SARAN AT CHAPRA 6. MR. PREM PRAKASH SINGH S/O NOT KNOWN AT PRESENT WORKING AS PRAKHAND TEACHER IN MIDDLE SCHOOL, BHATHA, P.O.+P.S.- MAKER, DISTT.- SARAN AT CHAPRA ----------- 6 13/05/2011 Petitioner challenges annexure-1 which is an order dated 21.11.2009 passed by the District Teachers Appointment Appellate Authority, Saran at Chapra. Reason for challenging the said order is that the Appellate Authority has held the appointment of the present petitioner to be bad and allowed the application of one Gunjan Kumari who had filed case no. 964 of 2009 before the Appellate Authority. Beside other assertions, there was a clear and categorical statement - 2 - made in the writ application that the order passed by the Appellate Authority is vitiated for the reasons that the petitioner was neither made a party to the said proceeding nor heard and, therefore, such an order having civil consequences requires to be interfered with. To test the veracity of such statement or the stand, the Court called for the original record of Case no. 964 of 2009. To say the least, the said assertion is not only correct but also established. It is evident that the petitioner was neither made a party to the dispute nor was ever heard before she was removed from the post of Panchayat teacher. The Court does not have to go beyond this fact irrespective of the merit or the rationale for adjudication because no body can be condemned without being heard is an old principle which every country governed by rule of law has to follow. Since in the present case there is an order vitally affecting the interest of the petitioner, least which the Appellate Authority could have done was to issue notice to the petitioner even during the course of hearing since certain materials emerged which required interference with her appointment, even though she was - 3 - not made a party before passing the order in question. In the opinion of this Court, there is a serious breach and there is violation of the principles of natural justice in this case. The Member of the Appellate Authority would do well by apprising himself with some of these basic principles before he embarks upon the responsibility of adjudication of a case. He should ensure that all those persons, who are likely to be affected, may be made party or heard before the consequential order is passed against him/her. Annexure-1, therefore, is quashed on this ground alone. Matter is remitted back to the Appellate Authority for passing a fresh order after giving notice to all the parties to the dispute and after hearing them including the petitioner. It goes without saying that the petitioner will cooperate in early adjudication of the case. This writ application is allowed. Let the original record tendered by the State Counsel be handed back to him which should be returned back to the Appellate Authority forthwith. AMIN/ (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.) - 4 -