IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7187 of 2010 IMRAN ANSARI, S/O ABDUL KALAM ANSARI, R/O VILLAGE- DUHOUNA, P.O. & P.S.- KATEYA,DISTRICT- GOPALGANJ. VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, GOPALGANJ. 3. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION,GOPALGANJ. 4. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, KATEYA, P.O & P.S. KATEYA, DISTRICT- GOPALGANJ. 5. THE MUKHIYA, GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ, BHERIYA, P.O & P.S. KATEYA, DISTRICT- GOPALGANJ. 6. THE PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, BHERIYA, P.O & P.S. KATEYA, DISTRICT- GOPALGANJ. 7. HEAD MASTER, GOVT. PRIMARY SCHOOL, DUHOUNA ,P.O.& P.S.- KATEYA, DISTRICT- GOPALGANJ. ----------- For the Petitioner :M/s Bipin Bihari Sinhg & Mr. S.K. Ranjan, Advocates. For the State : Mr. Abinash Kumar, AC to GP-I. ----------- 02 17.09.2010 By this writ application, the petitioner has requested to this Court to issue mandamus for implementation of the order of the District Teacher Appointment Appellate Authority, Gopalganj. The petitioner was selected as Shiksha Mitra in the year 2006. Upon the State Government enacting the Bihar State Primary Panchyat Teacher (Appointment & Service Conditions) Rules, 2006 petitioner having been working as a Shiksha Mitra was absorbed as Panchyat Teacher. While working as Panchyat Teacher, the Mukhiya issued order for his termination pursuant to directions issued by the Collector. The petitioner challenged this order before this Court in CWJC no. 14848 of 2006, which was disposed of by order dated 06.07.2009, giving liberty to the petitioner to move the District Teacher Appointment - 2 - Appellate Tribunal which had since been constituted. Petitioner accordingly moved the District Teacher Appointment Appellate Tribunal, Gopalganj, who having considered the entire matter held that the ground given for dismissing the petitioner was not made out. The Tribunal allowed the petitioner’s appeal by order dated 18.08.2009. The petitioner was working but when he brought the order of the Tribunal to the notice of the authorities he was favoured with the order of the Block Education Extension Officer, Kateya dated 07.04.2010 (Annexure-6). The reading of this communication of the Block Education Officer indeed leads to surprising results. On the one hand it notices that the Tribunal has set aside the dismissal of petitioner but on the other hand he hold that the Collector had ordered for dismissal of petitioner and, thus, petitioner should not be allowed to work. Having heard the learned counsels for the petitioner and the State, the writ petition must be allowed for reasons quoted hereinafter. Petitioner was appointed as Shiksha Mitra in the year 2006 and then absorbed as Panchayat Teacher under the 2006 Rules. While working as Panchayat Teacher, in the year 2008 the Collector of the district on an ex parte appraisal of facts ordered petitioner’s dismissal pursuant to which the Mukhiya issued the dismissal order. The ground for dismissal, as apparent from the order of the Tribunal, is that on the day the petitioner had made application he was under age. Let it be noted that the Tribunal after considering the dates has come to a contrary findings. The Tribunal finds that petitioner was - 3 - above 18½ years old. When the Collector ordered dismissal of petitioner, he challenged the order before this Court as noted above and this Court directed the petitioner to move the Tribunal. The Tribunal, as noted above, has ruled in favour of the petitioner and has held that petitioner’s dismissal was wrong and he was not under age. This order of the Tribunal is not being given effect to by the district authorities and that is why the petitioner is here. Having considered the matter, in my view, there is some misgiving at the district level about the status of the Tribunal. The Tribunal was constituted pursuant to the provisions of Rule-18 of the 2006 Rules. It is a statutory authority. It exercises statutory quasi judicial functions. Apart from this authority there is no other authority which is empowered to look into these matters. Thus, the first thing is that no one is aggrieved by selection or wrongful rejection at the stage of selection of Shiksha Mitra or Panchayat Teacher. The authority who can interfere in the matter is the only one and that is under Rule- 18. It was the B.D.O. earlier and now it is the Tribunal. The Collector or any other authority has no jurisdiction in the matter. Secondly, if one reads the 2006 Rules one would found that no appeal is provided against the order of the Tribunal. Further, Tribunal is not subject to superintendence of any authority except this Court under Articles-226 & 227 of the Constitution and the order of the Tribunal is final and finding on all the authority. The order of the Tribunal has to be obeyed. It is not open to anyone to question the correctness of the order. This matter has been set at rest by the Supreme Court in the - 4 - case of Bhopal Sugar Industries Ltd. Versus Income-tax Officer, Bhopal since reported in AIR 1961 Supreme Court 182 wherein the Apex Court has held thus:- “Where the Income-tax Officer had virtually refused to carry out the clear and unambiguous directions which a superior tribunal like the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, had given to him by its final order in exercise of its appellate powers in respect of an order of assessment made by him, such refusal is in effect a denial of justice, and is furthermore destructive of one of the basic principles in the administration of justice based as it is on the hierarchy of Courts. In such a case a writ or mandamus should issue ex debito justitiae to compel the Income-tax Officer to carry out the directions given to him by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The High Court would be clearly in error if it refuses to issue a writ on the ground that no manifest injustice had resulted from the order of the Income-tax Officer in view of the error committed by the Tribunal itself in its order. Such a view is destructive of one of the basic principles of the administration of justice.” I may also refer to Notification No.3716 dated 23.10.2008 of the State Government by which the Tribunal was constituted. It gives out the powers of the Tribunal and in so many - 5 - words in sub clause-15 of Clause (Kha) it specifically states that there is no appeal to any person or authority against the order of the Tribunal. Thus, everyone in the district is bound to obey the orders of the Tribunal whether they like it or not. In view of the aforesaid, I have no option but to issue a mandamus commanding upon the respondents including the Headmaster of the School in question to implement the order of the Tribunal as aforesaid and permit petitioner to work and pay him accordingly. It would be deemed that the petitioner has been in continuing service for all purpose and intent. Trivedi/ (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)