IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1634 of 2010 1. ARCHANA KUMARI W/O ABHISHEK SINGH R/O VILL SUARAHA, P.O.MUSEHRI BAZAR, BLOCK-VIJAIPUR, DISTT-GOPALGANJ. VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY ,HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT BIHAR,PATNA 2. DIRECTOR , PRIMARY EDUCATION GOVT.OF BIHAR,PATNA 3. COLLECTOR GOPALGANJ 4. DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT EDUCATION GOPALGANJ 5. BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER BLOCK, VIJAIPUR, GOPALGANJ 6. BLOCK EDUCATION EXTENSION OFFICER BLOCK VIJAIPUR, GOPALGANJ 7. MUKHIYA , GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ KUTIYA,BLOCK VIJAIPUR,GOPALGANJ 8. PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ KUTIYA , BLOCK, VIJAIPUR,DISTT-GOPALGANJ 9. DISTRICT TEACHERS'EMPLOYEMENT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL GOPALGANJ 10. MEMBER , DISTRICT TEACHER'S EMPLOYMENT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL GOPALGANJ 11. RINA KUMARI D/O RAIBAHADUR SINGH VILL HARKARPUR, P.O.MUSEHRI BAZAR,BLOCK VIJAIPUR,DISTT-GOPALGANJ ----------- For the Petitioner :M/s-Tej Bahadur Singh, Sr. Adv., Gyan Shankar, B.S. Pandey, Sanjay Kumar Shrivastava, Advocates. For the Pvt. Respondent : Mr. Manu Shankar Mishra, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sanjay Kr. Pandey, Adv. For the State : AC to AAG-V. -------------- 02 13.08.2010 The petitioner challenges the order of the District Teachers Employment Appellate Tribuanl, Gopalganj dated 09.10.2009, by which on an application of respondent no.11, Rina Kumari the appointment of petitioner, Archana Kumari as Panchayat Teacher as made in the year 2007, has been set aside. Respondent no.11, Rina Kumari has appeared and filed a counter affidavit. Mr. Tej Bahadur Singh, learned Senior Counsel - 2 - appearing in support of the writ petition raises two short issues of jurisdiction. Firstly, the order as passed by the Tribunal has been passed without notice or without hearing the petitioner. The Tribunal has set aside the appointment of petitioner and, thus, the order has been passed in gross violation of principles of natural justice and, accordingly, the order is void ab initio. The second ground of challenge is that admittedly respondent no.11 challenged the selection of petitioner. It is then submitted that the selection was of the year 2007, respondent no.11 did not move the designated authority under Rule-18, as it then stood. Much later, she moved the District Magistrate where the case was registered as Case No.141 of 2008. The District Magistrate then transferred the matter to the Tribunal and, having heard respondent no.11 and examined the records, the Tribunal passed the order. The submission is that as per Rule-18, as it originally stood, a complaint had to be made to the Block Development Officer as against selection within 30 days that was mandatory, that having not been made no further complaint could be entertained, much less, by the Tribunal which substituted the Block Development Officer in the year 2009. An application made to the Collector is of no consequence. Collector even if could have sent the matter to the Tribunal, the Tribunal could not have entertained the same after such a long delay, specially in view of the power that has been conferred on the Tribunal by Government Notification No.3716 dated 23.10.2008, in which it is - 3 - clearly provided that any complaint made to the Tribunal has to be made within 30 days of the selection. Here, the selection was of the year 2007 and the matter was taken up before the Collector in the year 2008 and reached the Tribunal in the year 2009, such delayed challenge cannot be entertained. In my view, on both the counts the writ petition must succeed. It is elementary principle of law that without hearing a party no adverse order could be passed against him. The order thus passed is void ab initio. Therefore, the impugned order of the Tribunal cannot be sustained at all. In regard to the second point, it is equally valid. Respondent no.11 had a chance to challenge the proceedings before the Block Development Officer within 30 days of the selection. Nothing appears to have been done. For the first time, she moves the Collector in the year 2008, who sends the matter to the Tribunal in the year 2009 that itself is fatal. On the grounds aforesaid, the writ petition has to be allowed and the impugned order, as contained in Anneure-5A, is quashed. Trivedi (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)