IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4720 of 2009 SEEMA KUMARI & ANR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 2/ 15/04/2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. The petitioners were applicants in response to an advertisement of 2008 for appointment on the post of Panchayat Teacher. It is submitted that the private respondents-8 and 9 did not participate in the counseling when the final merit list was published on 31.1.2009. The consent of the petitioners for appointment, sought for, was given on 2.2.2009. The private respondents then moved the appellate authority aggrieved for denial of counseling to them. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in this application by the private respondents, the petitioners were not impleaded as parties, much less noticed or heard in the matter. Specific pleading to that effect has been made in paragraph-9 of the writ petition. The appellate authority by the impugned order has then directed for re-counseling for the benefit of the private respondents. 2 Though selection and empanelment, per se, do not create any right, but then there has to be justification for denial of the benefit of the same. The selection process was over after the merit list was prepared on 31.1.2009. Be that as it may, the law is well settled by repeated judicial pronouncements for long years that no person can be condemned unheard. The petitioners were empanelled after counseling. A benefit had been granted to them. To what extent that benefit could enure to them is not material at this stage. On facts of the case, this Court is satisfied that the petitioner could not be denied the benefit of selection by re-opening of the entire selection process without the opportunity of being heard when they were being directly affected. The appellate authority was discharging quasi judicial functions. Had the merit list not been prepared, the matter may have been entirely different. An authority discharging quasi judicial functions has a bounden duty to comply with the principles of natural justice and grant opportunity to all concerned likely to be affected by its order. Had it been a suo motu administrative action, the issue was different. But, when a complaint is made and it is accepted without hearing those affected by the acceptance of the complaint, the issue becomes different. In AIR 1990 S.C.1984 (S.N. Mukherjee v. Union 3 of India) on the obligation of a quashi judicial authority to comply wit the principles of natural justice the Supreme court has observed at paragraph-35 as follows:- 35. “Reasons, when recorded by an administrative authority in an order passed by it while exercising quasi-judicial functions, would no doubt facilitate the exercise of its jurisdiction by the appellate or supervisory authority. But the other considerations referred to above, which have also weighed with this Court in holding that an administrative authority must record reasons for its decision are of no less significance. These considerations show that the recording of reasons by an administrative authority serves a salutary purpose, namely, it excludes chances of arbitrariness and ensures a degree of fairness in the process of decisions- making. The said purpose would apply equally to all decisions and its application cannot be confined to decisions which are subject to appeal, revision or judicial review. In our opinion, therefore, the requirement that reasons be recorded should govern the decisions of an administrative authority exercising quasi- judicial functions irrespective of the fact whether the decision is subject to appeal, revision of judicial review. It may, however, be added that it is not required that the reasons should be as elaborate as in the decision of a Court of law. The extent and nature of the reasons would depend on particular facts and circumstances. What is necessary is that the reasons are clear and explicit so as to indicate that the authority has given due consideration to the points in controversy. The need for recording of reasons is greater in a case where the order is passed at the original stage. The appellate or revisional authority, if it affirms such an order, need not give separate reasons if the appellate or revisional authority agrees with the reasons contained in the order under challenge.” The impugned order further is non-speaking in nature as it does not discuss the materials and reasons 4 of the satisfaction of the appellate authority on facts of the wrong done, if any, to the private respondents. This Court does not have the benefit of appreciating what passed the mind of the appellate authority in passing the order dated 24.3.2009. Such an order clearly hinders judicial review. The impugned order dated 24.3.2009 of the appellate authority in its present form is clearly not sustainable in law. It is accordingly set aside. The matter is remanded to the appellate authority to issue notice to the petitioner and to the private respondents and then to proceed to decide the matter in accordance with law as discussed hereinabove and dispose of any application of the private respondents by a reasoned and speaking order after meeting the contentions both by the petitioners and the private respondents by a process of reasoning. In view of the nature of the order passed, of remand, where the interest of the private respondents has been kept fully protected, this Court does not consider it necessary to issue notice to them at this stage as that shall only prolong the pendency of the matter before this Court unnecessarily. The resolution No.3153 dated 25.8.2008 of the State Government in the Department of Human Resources Development making amendments in the 5 Bihar Primary Teachers (Appointment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2006 provides for the constitution of the appellate authority to hear matters with regard to appointment and other issues of teachers. Clause-3 of the amendment deals with the persons eligible to be the members of the appellate authority. It provides for nomination of members from the Bihar Judicial Service, not below the rank of A.D.J. This Court observes that given the spate of litigations being filed with regard to appointment and other issues of teachers, the State Government shall be well advised to consider the desirability of prompt implementation of this part of the rules by suitable consideration of superannuated judicial officers of that rank which may save the Government itself much time and money. Let a copy of this order be forwarded also to the Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department. KC (Navin Sinha, J.)