IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9978 of 2010 1. SATYADEO PRASAD SINGH, S/O SRI SURAJDEO PRASAD SINGH, R/O VILLAGE KULAVA, P.O. KUSUMHAR,BLOCK AKABARPUR,DISTRICT- NAWADA. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. DIRECTOR,PRIMARY EDUCATION, STATE OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, NAWADA. 4. DISTRICT TEACHER EMPLOYMENT APPELLATE AUTHORITY, NAWADA. 5. DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION,NAWADA. 6. BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, AKBARPUR,NAWADA. 7. BLOCK EDUCATION EXTENSION OFFICER, AKBARPUR,NAWADA. 8. BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER,AKBARPUR,NAWADA. 9. PRAMUKH OF PANCHAYAT SAMITTEE, AKBARPUR, NAWADA. 10. MEMBER OF PANCHAYAT SAMITTEE, AKBARPUR. ----------- 2 14.7.2010 By this writ petition the petitioner assails the order of District Teachers Appointment Appellate Authority, Nawadah as passed in Case no. 130 of 2010 being order dated 12.1.2010. The petitioner asserts that he has made an application for appointment as Primary Panchayat Teacher giving his matriculation mark sheet, which is appended as Annexure 2 to the writ petition, which shows that out of 900 marks he had scored 370 marks. It is on basis of this mark sheet that the merit list was prepared and accordingly he was selected in the year 2007 itself and has been working since then. In 2010 a complaint has been lodged by one Nagbhushan , who was also an applicant for the said appointment complaining that the petitioner has used 2 a forged mark sheet showing that he had got 639 marks out of 900 marks in matriculation and it is on basis of this forged mark sheet that the petitioner was ultimately selected. It is specifically stated that without making petitioner a party, without examining the basis of which merit list was prepared and without granting opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, petitioner’s appointment was ordered to be set aside if, by the authority, it is found that the mark sheet is forged. It appears that thereafter mark sheet was sent for verification and it was found that the mark sheet is forged . It is further submitted that the complaint has been filed in 2010 in respect of a selection that was done in the year 2007. Mr. Ganesh Prasad Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had , in fact, filed his matriculation certificate in which his marks, as disclosed, were 370 out of 900. Some one mischievously had tried to introduce another mark sheet. He submits that the marks awarded in the merit list to the petitioners were worked out on basis of petitioner’s scoring 370 out of 900 marks and not any other mark sheet. The tribunal could not have proceeded in the matter without making petitioner a party and examining all records .Thus, it is submitted that the order of the tribunal is in conflict with the principle of natural justice and in gross violation thereof. Having considered the matter and having heard the parties, in my view, the order of tribunal, as contained in 3 Annexure 6, cannot be sustained. It is admitted that this order was passed behind the back of the petitioner. Petitioner was not even made a party much less granted opportunity to defend himself. The only person, who appeared apart from other applicants was Block Education Officer. Thus, the order is void ab inition . It must be remembered that the tribunal exercises quasi judicial function. It decides a list between the applicant and the other side. The lis has to be decided in quasi judicial manner upon hearing the parties and examining the records .The decision has severed consequence and as such cannot be taken in such a casual and caviler manner.Thus, I set aside the order of the tribunal, as aforesaid and all consequently orders and actions taken also cannot be sustained. I remand the matter to the tribunal with a direction to the tribunal to require the applicant before it to add petitioner as a party and hear the petitioner in detail. The tribunal would be obliged to call for original records and verify the allegation before deciding the matter on merit. The tribunal would also consider the question of delay in moving the tribunal for the relief sought for. In view of the aforesaid, it would be deemed that the petitioner has not been terminating and petitioner is continuing in service with all consequential benefits till he is removed. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the 4 writ petition stands disposed of. singh ( Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)