IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8764 of 2010 SANGITA KUMARI D/O DAWARIKA PRASAD R/O VILL HANUMAN BIGHA, P.S.KASHICHAK, DISTT-NALANDA. VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE COMMISSIONER, CUM SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE DIRECTOR , PRIMARY EDUCATION GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 4. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE NAWADA, DISTT-NAWADA 5. THE DEPUTY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER NAWADAH, DISTT-NAWADAH 6. THE DISTRICT -SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION CUM PROGRAMME CO-ORDINATOR NAWADAH, DISTT-NAWADAH 7. THE MEMBER DISTRICT TEACHER , EMPLOYMENT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAWADAH, DISTT-NAWADAH 8. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER BLOCK KASHICHAK, P.S.KASHI CHAK, DISTT-NAWADAH 9. THE BLOCK EDUCATION EXTENSION OFFICER BLOCK KASHICHAK, P.S.KASHI CHAK, DISTT-NAWADAH 10. THE GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ BALAR, THROUGH MUKHIYA, BLOCK KASHICHAK, DISTT-NAWADAH 11. THE PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ BELAR, BLOCK KASHI CHAK, P.S.KASHICHAK,DISTT- NAWADAH ----------- 02 29.10.2010 The petitioner is aggrieved by the order as passed in Case No.111 of 2009, by the District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority, Nawada, by which her services has been ordered to be terminated. Two short issues of law have been raised on behalf of the petitioner. Firstly, that the appeals were filed by three persons, namely, Raj Kishore Prasad, Nawal Prasad and Kumari Mamta. In those appeals the Tribunal ordered in traversing beyond the pleading and beyond the relief claimed. The cases related to the three appeals would be considered as the Tribunal is not a Public Interest Litigation Forum where it has any suo motu jurisdiction. Secondly, it is - 2 - contended that even otherwise her appointment could not be questioned before the Tribunal without she having been made a party and having been heard in the matter. Having heard the matter and with consent of parties the writ petition is being disposed of at this stage itself. Firstly, I must clear the misconception about the authority and jurisdiction of the Tribunal. The Tribunal is constituted in terms of Rule-18 of the Bihar Panchayat Teachers (Appointment & Service Conditions) Rules-2006. It is a Tribunal of limited jurisdiction and, thus, has no inherent power to entertain or decide any issue it likes in relation to appointment of Panchayat Teachers. Its jurisdiction is limited to the dispute as brought before it. Secondly, it cannot pass adverse order against a person without making him party. Keeping two principles of jurisdiction in mind, if we examine the impugned order, it would be found that the order cannot be sustained. In order to give relief to three appellants before the Tribunal, petitioner’s service could not be interfered with and/or was not required to be interfered with. But, the Tribunal treating the application as an application for Public Interest Litigation examined the whole process of recruitment, which jurisdiction it does not have. On this count alone, interference with the appointment of the petitioner was uncalled for. Secondly and more importantly, even if petitioner’s appointment was to be questioned, it could be questioned by one Arun Kumar but he did not question the appointment as he was already in service. Further, how could the Tribunal at all set aside the - 3 - appointment of petitioner without petitioner being made a party to the proceeding, without petitioner being noticed and without petitioner being heard. It is a basic principle of natural justice that no adverse order can be passed without making the concerned person party. Thus, on this ground also the order is unsustainable. In view of the above, I find that the order of the Tribunal in respect of the petitioner, as aforesaid, cannot be sustained. It is quashed in so far as petitioner is concerned. It would be deemed that the petitioner is continuing in service with all consequential benefits. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. Trivedi/ (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)