IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.17473 of 2010 1. USHA KUMARI W/O SRI ARBIND KUMAR RAI R/O VILL HARNAHI, P.S.JAGDISHPUR, DISTT-BHOJPUR Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION BHOJPUR AT ARA 3. THE SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER JAGDISHPUR, BHOJPUR 4. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER JAGDISHPUR, BHOJPUR 5. THE BLOCK EDUCATION EXTENSION OFFICER JAGDISHPUR, BHOJPUR 6. THE MUKHIYA , GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ DALIPPUR, BLOCK-JAGDISHPUR, P.S.DANGAI, DISTT- BHOJPUR 7. THE PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ DALIPPUR, BLOCK-JAGDISHPUR, P.S. DANGAI, DISTT-BHOJPUR ----------- 2 13/05/2011 Petitioner is aggrieved because despite the order of the District Teachers Appointment Appellate Authority, Bhojpur dated 15.07.2009 contained in annexure-1 and despite a letter offered to the petitioner giving a kind of assurance for her appointment in terms of annexure-4 and the consent letter contained in annexure-6, petitioner was not appointed but yet another person has come to be accommodated. According to the petitioner the unfairness and arbitrariness of the decision is writ large in the conduct of the Panchayat in question. - 2 - Petitioner, therefore, wants a direction for enforcement of her right for appointment as a Panchayat teacher. The basis for deriving such right in favour of the petitioner flows from annexure-1. This is supposed to be a quasi judicial authority adjudication who gave a direction upon the Panchayat to ensure petitioner’s counselling and it is in this background that the subsequent annexures or communications were issued in favour of the petitioner but without any net result on this score. If the very foundation of the right of the petitioner which is supposed to have arisen from a quasi decision is no order in the eye of law, then in the opinion of this Court no direction can be given in favour of the petitioner. Constitution of the District Teachers Appointment Appellate Authority by the State to decide the disputes of appointment relating to Panchayat teachers is supposed to function as a quasi judicial authority and a quasi judicial authority is supposed to have a basic modicum of understanding of law and procedure. If the quasi judicial authority reduces itself to - 3 - the level of Babu then any order passed by such authority does not become an order from where a right in favour of a citizen shall flow. A reading of annexure-1 would show that there is no discussion with regard to the claim of the petitioner. There is nothing to show as to what is exactly the basis on which the Appellate Authority passed an order to hold counseling for the petitioner and if a summary or cryptic order which is more of a dictate to the Panchayat rather than adjudication is made, then the Court is left with no option but to quash annexure-1 and also to bring it to the notice of the Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna, who shall ensure that they should not appoint such persons as Member of the Appellate Authority who do not have the basic semblance of understanding of their role or capability as to how to go about adjudicating matters as a quasi judicial authority. Disputes require hearing and adjudication by a speaking order and not dictates without reasoning. May be, the Principal Secretary needs to reconsider whether such a person should continue on the - 4 - post of Appellate Authority at all. In view of the above, this writ application has no merit. It is dismissed. Let t a copy of this order be communicated to the Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna for follow up action. AMIN/ (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)