IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9424 of 2010 Renu Kumari, W/o- Vinay Nath Mishra, R/O Kharahia Basti, Ward No. 10, P.S.- Araria, District- Araria. –Petitioner. VERSUS 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Secretary, Primary Education, Human Resources Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The District Magistrate, Araria. 4. The District Superintendent of Education, Araria. 5. The Block Development Officer, Araria. 6. The District Teacher Employment Appellate Authority, Araria. 7. The Panchayat Secretary, Rajgera, Araria. 8. The Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Rajgera, Araria. 9. Mamta Kumari, W/o-Sanjeev Kumar Singh, R/o-Village-Sandalpur, P.S. Araria, District-Araria. –Respondents. ----------- 02 06.09.2010 The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the District Teachers Appointment Appellate Tribunal, Araria as communicated under Memo No.607 dated 31.05.2010 (Annexure-10). By the said order, the appointment of the petitioner as Panchayat Teacher has been set aside on an application by respondent no.9. Several issues of facts and law have been raised for challenging the order of the Tribunal. In my view, none is required to be gone into by this Court at this stage as the writ petition can be allowed on a very short legal issue. Respondent no.9 has since appeared and filed a counter affidavit. Heard the parties and with their consent the writ petition is being disposed of at this stage itself. It is not in dispute that the order of the Tribunal was directly against the petitioner. Petitioner makes a grievance that he was not heard by the Tribunal. - 2 - Mr. D.K. Sinha, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent no.9 submits that petitioner appeared before the Tribunal and, as such, can make no grievance of that fact. Petitioner points out that the Tribunal called the petitioner only to record the submission of the petitioner and not to defend the challenge to his appointment. Petitioner, thus, submits that on these facts the order, in question, was passed without granting effective opportunity to the petitioner to defend his case. Relying on the judgment in the case of S.L. Kapoor Vs. Jagmohan & others since reported in AIR 1981 SC 136 he submits that even though petitioner had appeared before the Authority but for a different purpose, that would not be taken to be compliance of principles of natural justice and, accordingly, the order must be held to be passed in violation thereof. Having considered the matter, in my view, the writ petition must succeed. If the petitioner was not given effective chance to defend himself no order could be passed adverse to him. In so far as it relates to petitioner, I remand the matter to the Tribunal for fresh consideration in accordance with law. For the sake of clarity, parties would be entitled to argue all issues of facts and law that may be raised or that may arise and the Tribunal would decide the same expeditiously preferable within 90 days. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of. Trivedi/ (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)