IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8892 of 2010 1. AJAY KUMAR TIWARI S/O SRI RAM BAHADUR TIWARI R/O VILL.- TIWARI TOLA, P.S. SANGRAMPUR, DISTT.- EAST CHAMPARAN. VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE DISTRICT TEACHER'S APPOINTMENT APPELLATE AUTHORITY, EAST CHAMPARAN 3. THE PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, MADHUBANI SOUTH, BLOCK SANGRAMPUR, DISTT.- EAST CHAMPARAN 4. MUKHIA GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ SOUTH MADHUBANI, BLOCK SANGRAMPUR, DISTT.- EAST CHAMPARAN 5. DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, EAST CHAMPARAN 6. NAG NARAYAN TIWARI S/O PARAS TIWARI R/O VILL.- SABALPUR, P.S. SANGRAMPUR, DISTT.- EAST CHAMPARAN 7. POOJA KUMARI D/O NAG NARAYAN TIWARI, W/O MOHAN KR. SINGH R/O VILL. AND P.O. PARSAUNA, P.S. SANGRAMPUR, DISTT.- EAST CHAMPARAN 8. MOHAN KUMAR SINGH S/O RAMJI SINGH R/O VILL. AND P.O. PARSAUNA, P.S. SANGRAMPUR, DISTT.- EAST CHAMPARAN 9. MADHUMITA KUMARI VIRENDRA NARAYAN SINGH R/O VILL. AND P.O. JASANTIPATTI, P.S. KOTWA, DISTT.- EAST CHAMPARAN 10. REENA KUMARI W/O BINAY KR. SINGH R/O VILL. AND P.O. PARSAUNA, P.S. SANGRAMPUR, DISTT.- EAST CHAMPARAN ----------- 02 08.07.2010 The petitioner has challenged the correctness of the order dated 21.04.2010 passed in Case No.279/08 by the District Teachers Appointment Appellate Tribunal, East Champaran at Motihari. By the said order the Tribunal has refused to take up the matter and disposed of it after considering the evidences brought on record. The reasoning given by the Tribunal is that earlier member had passed an order directing the applicant to furnish the evidence in support of his allegation within 10 days. Apparently, as nothing was submitted within 10 days, the matter was automatically closed. The applicant, from the records showed that he had filed application giving evidence as well within the time, which was received by the office of the Tribunal. Applicant - 2 - argued that if the matter has to be closed final order has to be passed by the previous member, which was never done and, thus, the matter was open for consideration. The Tribunal on the consideration of the aforesaid held that the order passed earlier was akin to peremptory order and, apparently, having not been complied with, the appeal stood rejected and no further orders were required to be passed. In my view, the finding of the Tribunal is not correct. When the question itself has been raised whether the order has been complied within the time or not and application with evidences was found on record, it was appropriate for the Tribunal to consider the matter on merit and not disposed it of on legal technicalities at the cost of the justice. Having heard the matter, the Tribunal would do justice for which it has been created. I, therefore, constrained to set aside the order dated 21.04.2010 passed by the Tribunal and remand the matter to the Tribunal for fresh consideration on merit at the earliest preferably within three months from the date of filing of this order before the Tribunal. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. Trivedi (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)