IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8339 of 2009 Smt.Kiran Yadav, wife of Uday Kumar, resident of village-Sonaul Khan, P.S. Majorganj, District-Sitamarhi. -Petitioner. VERSUS 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Member, District Shikshak Niyojan Pradhikar, Sitamarhi. 3. The Deputy Development Commissioner, Sitamarhi. 4. The District Superintendent of Education, Sitamarhi. 5. The Block Development Officer, Majorganj, Sitamarhi. 6. The Block Education Extension Officer, Majorganj, Sitamarhi. 7. The Panchayat Sachiv, Ranjitpur West, Dumra Block, Sitamarhi. 8. Nitu Kumari, Daughter of Ram Sahay Yadav, resident of Near West of Rajkiya Kanya Madhya Vidyalaya, Near Raghunath Jha College, Beside Professor K.K. Singh, Sitamarhi. -Respondents. ----------- 06 08.07.2010 The petitioner and respondent no.8 had applied for the post of Panchayat Teacher. Petitioner was selected and is working. Respondent no.8 filed an objection before the District Panchayat Teachers Employment Appellate Authority complaining that respondent no.8 was higher in the merit list and wrongly ignoring her petitioner was appointed. The Tribunal called for the records, which showed that in fact respondent no.8 was shown not to have appeared for counseling and accordingly petitioner who was lower in the merit list was considered for appointment. The Tribunal upon appraisal of facts held that respondent no.8 had been wrongly deprived of her due appointment. The Tribunal set aside the appointment of the petitioner and directed the respondent no.8 to be appointed in her place. The petitioner has come up to this Court against the - 2 - order of the Tribunal, challenging it on the simple ground that though the order was passed cancelling petitioner’s appointment, neither the petitioner was made party nor opportunity of hearing was given, this, it is submitted, is a fatal error. Having heard the parties including counsel for respondent no.8, I am satisfied that the impugned order cannot be sustained. It violates basic principle of natural justice. Whatever ultimate fate of the case but the parties must be noticed and heard before an order is passed by any authority. The order of the Tribunal is quashed. The matter is remanded back to the Tribunal to be decided after notice to the parties in accordance with law at the earliest and preferably within three months from the date of production of a copy before the Tribunal. With these observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of. Trivedi (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)