IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7614 of 2008 1. Shabistan Perween, W/O Perwez Alam, residence of village- Chackjohra, P.S. Leheria Saria, District-Darbhanga. 2. Md. Rizwan, S/O Late Md. Suleman, residence of village- Jhagaruwa, P.S. Jamalpur, District- Darbhanga. 3. Francy Kumari, W/O Rajan Masih, residence of village- Dilawerpur, P.S. Bahadurpur, District-Darbhanga. 4. Chitralekha Devi, W/O Bali Ram, residence of Village- Laxmisagar (Sadhu Gachi), P.S. University Thana, District-Darbhanga. 5. Ramaque Khatoon, W/O Manzer Alam, residence of village- Bankipur, P.S. Bahadurpur, District-Darbhanga. 6. Bendeshwary Sahu, S/O Late Ramdhari Sahu, residence of village- Gaddipatti, P.S. Foolparas, District-Madhubani. 7. Kumari Mamta, W/O Sanjay Kumar, residence of Village- Dilawerpur, P.S. Bahadurpur, District- Darbhanga. 8. Shafi Ahmad, S/O Md. Shabbir Ahmad, residence of village- Bhauropatti, P.S. Bahadurpur, District- Darbhanga. 9. Mera Kumari, W/O Dr. Chandrabushan, residence of village- Newganga Sagar, Near, Sarbodey School, South P.S. Kilaghat, District- Darbhanga………………………………..….Petitioners. Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Govt. of Bihar. 2. The Director(Primary Education), Human Resources Development Department, Govt. of Bihar,Patna. 3. The Collector, Darbhanga. 4. The District Education Officer, Darbhanga. 5. The District Superintendent Education Officer, Darbhanga. 6. The Block Development Officer, Block Bahadurpur, District- Darbhanga. 7. The Block Extension Education Officer, Block Bahadurpur, District- Darbhanga. 8. The Secretary, Gram Panchayat Dilawerpur, Block Bahadurpur, District- Darbhanga. 9. The Mukhiya Gram Panchayat Dilawerpur, Block Bahadurpur, District- Darbhanga…………………………………Respondents. ----------- For the petitioners: Dr. Abdus Shakoor and Mr. Ajoy Kumar Chakraborty, Advocates. For the respondents: Mr. Yogendra Kumar Singh, Assistant counsel to S.C.6. ---------- 09. 08.12.2010. Heard learned counsels for the petitioners and the State. The present writ application has been 2 filed for quashing the Memo No. 415 dated 29.02.2008 as contained in Annexure-12, issued by the Block Development Officer, Bahadurpur (respondent no.6) whereby and whereunder the entire selection process for appointment of Panchayat Teachers in Dilawarpur Panchayat under Bahadurpur in the district of Darbhanga was cancelled on the ground that the selection process for appointment was completed in one day i. e., on 30.11.2007, hence, the prescribed procedures were not followed. The prayer has also been made for not disturbing the petitioners in discharging their duties since they are still working. It is also prayed for payment of arrear of salary. Admittedly, an advertisement was made vide Annexure-3 dated 01.08.2006 for appointment of teachers which included the appointment of the Panchayat teachers. This is not in dispute that the petitioners, in pursuance to the advertisement applied within stipulated time. In between 12.5.2007 to 26.05.2007, counselling was done. On 16.07.2007 the verification of certificates were done. It appears that in the meantime some complaint was filed and the entire documents went into custody of the Block Education Extension Officer for conducting 3 enquiry which resulted into non-completion of the appointment process. It further appears that for completion of appointment process, various candidates filed representation before the Block Development Officer, Bahadurpur and the District Education Officer, Darbhanga as contained in Annexures-5 and 5/A, when the Block Development Officer-cum- Circle Officer, Bahadurpur, vide letter dated 21.11.2007 as contained in Annexure-6 directed the Block Education Extension Officer to complete the enquiry and submit a report to the Panchayat by 25.11.2007. It appears that the Block Education Extension Officer, handed over the document to the Panchayat Secretary on 29.11.2007. In the meantime, the Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna, vide letter no. 07 dated 08.11.2007 directed all the District Education Officers and the District Superintendents of Education to complete the process of appointment by 30.11.2007 otherwise disciplinary action was directed to be taken under the Panchayat Raj Act and other provisions of law. Pursuant to that, vide Memo No. 6328 dated 22.11.2007, the District Education Officer, Darbhanga, issued a letter to 4 the Block Extension Education Officer, Bahadurpur, as contained in Annexure-7, to complete the process of appointment by 30.11.2007. Consequently, the merit list was prepared and the appointment letters were issued on 30.11.2007. Consequently, the petitioners joined on 01.12.2007. It is also contended that the petitioners are still working but they have not been paid their salary till date. This Court vide order dated 09.01.2009, granted status quo. This contention of the petitioners that the petitioners were working when the order of status quo was passed has not been controverted by the learned counsel for the State. The Block Development Officer, Bahadurpur-cum-Appellate Authority, vide order dated 29.02.2008, terminated the services of the petitioners on the ground that the process of preparation of merit list and issuance of appointment letters were done on one and the same day i.e. 30.11.2007, which did not allow the others to file objection under 2006 Rule and this was done in order to help Panchayat Secretary and the Mukhiya. The said order is the impugned order in the present proceeding. It is contended by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners that in pursuance to 5 the appointment, a right was vested to the petitioners which can not be taken away by issuance of the order as contained in Annexure-12 without being given appropriate opportunity. Learned counsel for the State does not controvert this contention that the petitioners were neither noticed nor they were heard before passing of the impugned order. The impugned order as contained in Annexure-12 also does not reflect that any opportunity was given to the petitioners or they were noticed before passing of the order. Hence on this ground alone, this court feels that the impugned order is not sustainable. The letter of the Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna, dated 08.11.2007 as contained in Annexure-14 to the second supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioners, reflects that the Principal Secretary directed to complete the appointment process by 30.11.2007, otherwise disciplinary action would be taken against the authorities concerned but it appears that no disciplinary action was taken against the authorities concerned who kept the file till 29.11.2007, one day prior to stipulated date of completing of 6 appointment process. It is absolutely clear that it was the Block Education Extension Officer who handed over the papers to the appointment committee just one day prior to the last date fixed for completing the appointment process. The impugned order also reflects that on 29.11.2007 the District Education Officer, Darbhanga, directed the Block Education Extension Officer, Bahadurpur, to complete the process within one day i.e., 30.11.2007. It appears that the counselling and verification was done much before but due to some ongoing enquiry, neither the merit list was prepared nor appointment letters were issued but for such speed-up process, the authorities were responsible and not the petitioners. This Court is surprised that the impugned order has been passed by the Block Development Officer-cum-Appellate Authority, Bahadurpur, who himself directed the Block Extension Education Officer on 21.11.2007, as contained in Annexure-6, to submit enquiry report by 25.11.2007 but while hearing the appeal he tried to shift blame on the Panchayat representatives which appears to be absolutely unreasonable. The impugned order suggests that no prescribed time for inviting objection was 7 provided by the appointment committee. I think that in the peculiar circumstances, the said procedure of inviting objection was not followed. The impugned order does not suggest that any objection was filed before the authority concerned within stipulated time, as the impugned order was passed on 29.02.2008 whereas the petitioners were appointed on 30.11.2007. An I.A. has been filed, being I.A. No. 3876 of 2010 by Sharvan Kumar Mahto, claiming himself to be the complainant on the basis of which the Block Development Officer, Bahadurpur, directed for conducting enquiry and passed the impugned order. Though the impugned order reflects that the complaint was filed by him but it does not reflect what his grievance was. Though it is claimed by the intervener that he filed the petition on 04.12.2007 but in view of the principle laid down in Baldev Ray Vs. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna & Ors reported in 2010 (4) P.L.J.R. page 233 that if objector can not get any relief then the Tribunal has no inherent jurisdiction to decide any issue of its own. 8 Para 6 of the judgment reads as follows:- “In my view, the Tribunal should have stopped there because if the appellant could not be granted any relief then there was no cause for the Tribunal to proceed further because the jurisdiction of the Tribunal is to resolve a lis inter party and not a lis in public interest. The Tribunal has no inherent jurisdiction to decide any issue on its own. Once it was found that the appellant could not be granted any relief, that was end of the matter. The Tribunal, thus, erred in proceeding further to examine the validity of the petitioner’s appointment because that was clearly beyond the scope of its jurisdiction which jurisdiction is based upon the appeal filed by a person seeking relief.” Since the appellate order neither reflects the claim of the intervener nor demonstrates that intervener had applied for the appointment, I am not inclined to allow the intervention petition. The intervention petition is dismissed. Since the petitioners were appointed in pursuance to major compliance of the procedure of appointment, they are still working and neither they were given any notice nor they 9 were given opportunity to be heard before terminating their services, on these grounds, I do hereby quash the order of termination dated 29.02.2008 as contained in Annexure-12. Let the Panchayat authority make payment to the petitioners for the period they have worked in accordance with the Rule. However, authorities are entitled to take appropriate action against the authority who was responsible for not following the procedure for initiating objection in accordance with Rule. Accordingly, the writ application is allowed. U.K. (Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.)