IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.18590 of 2009 1. SHRI NIWAS YADAV S/O SRI BHOJA YADAV VILL- NARWAN, P.O. NARWAN, P.S. MANJHI, DISTT. SARAN 2. MD. SAGIR ANSARI S/O LATE HASAN ANSARI R/O VILL- SHRIRAMPUR, P.O. MAHMADPUR, P.S. MANJHI, DISTT. SARAN 3. MD. TIZAMUDDIN ANSARI S/O UMMAT MIYAN VILL- MAHUI, P.O. BIGHAN, P.S. MANJHI, DISTT. SARAN 4. RINA KUMARI D/O AWADESH SINGH R/O VILL- NACHAP, P.O. NACHAP, P.S. MANJHI, DISTT. SARAN 5. KUMARI PRIYA D/O BALINDRA PD. ROY VILL- BHAJAUNA, P.O. NACHAP, P.S. MANJHI, DISTT. SARAN 6. SADIA KHATOON D/O MD. HUSSAIN R/O VILL+P.O. NACHAP, P.S. MANJHI, DISTT. SARAN 7. RAJIV RANJAN SINGH S/O LATE PRABHUNATHA SINGH R/O VILL- BHAJAUNA, P.O. NACHAP, P.S. MANJHI, DISTT. SARAN 8. DILIP KUMAR SINGH S/O TRILOK KUMAR SINGH R/O VILL- BHAJAUNA, P.O. NACHAP, P.S. MANJHI, DISTT. SARAN 9. SAJDA KHATOON D/O MD. MUSTAQ R/O VILL+P.O. NACHAPT, P.S. MANJHI, DISTT. SARAN 10. RAJESH KR. RANJAN S/O PRABHUNATHA RAM P.O.+VILL- JOGION, P.S. EKMA, DISTT. SARAN 11. SABITA KUMARI D/O RAMESHWAR YADAV R/O VILL+P.O. BIGHAN, P.S. MANJHI, DISTT. SARAN 12. NEELAM KUMARI D/O MAHESH PD. SINGH R/O VILL- NAWADA, P.O. CHAINWA, P.S. EKMA, DISTT. SARAN 13. CHANDRA SHEKHAR SINGH S/O JANAK SINGH VILL+P.O. NACHAP, P.S. MANJHI, DISTT. SARAN 14. ANJU KUMARI W/O SANJAY KUMAR R/O VILL+P.O. BIGHAN, P.S. MANJHI, DISTT. SARAN Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE DISTRICT TEACHERS APPOINTMENT TRIBUNAL, THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN SARAN, CHAPRA 3. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION SARAN AT CHAPRA 4. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER MANJHI, SARAN AT CHAPRA - 2 - 5. THE BLOCK EDUCATION EXTENSION OFFICER MANJHI, SARAN AT CHAPRA 6. THE MUKHIYA GRAM PANCHAYAT BHAJAUNA NACHAP, P.S. MANJHI, BLOCK- MANJHI, DISTT. SARAN AT CHAPRA 7. THE PANCHAYAT SECRETARY GRAM PANCHAYAT BHAJAUNA NACHAP, P.S. MANJHI, BLOCK- MANJHI, DISTT. SARAN AT CHAPRA 8. ANAMIKA KUMARI D/O PRABHU NATHA TIWARI VILL- NACHAP, P.S. MANJHI, DISTT. SARAN AT CHAPRA ----------- For the Petitioners :- M/S. Rajendra Prasad Singh, Sr. Advocate, Onkar kumar & Rakesh Kumar Singh. or the Respondents :- Mr. Shivajee Pandey, Sr. Advocate ------ 4 20/05/2011 There is a pointed statement and assertion made in paragraph 25 of the writ application that annexure-1 which is under challenge in the present writ application has been passed by the District Teachers Appointment Appellate Authority, Saran without any notice or hearing to the petitioners. Right of hearing is an inherent right and more so, when the order of the Tribunal has a direct bearing on these petitioners because they have lost their job as Panchayat teachers due to order dated 4.11.2009. The Court does not have to remind the appellate authority that it is the golden principle that in a country governed by the Rule of Law, any order which have civil consequences cannot be passed without giving an - 3 - opportunity of hearing to the concerned persons. Learned Senior Counsel representing the private respondent very fairly submits that the petitioners were not heard or may be not even made party to the dispute. However, whatever he submits in support of the merit of the order is not required to be noted because whatever be the quality of the order passed by a quasi judicial authority, namely, the Appellate Authority stands vitiated not because of the rationality of the decision but because of not impleading the petitioners as party to the dispute and not hearing them before making a final decision in the case. A good case is made out for quashing of annexure-1 and remand the matter to the Appellate Authority with a direction that all the partiers to the dispute will appear before the Appellate Authority within four weeks from today and the Appellate Authority thereafter must ensure that the present petitioners are also made parties to the dispute and are given a copy of the allegations made against their appointments which would be a copy of the complaint earlier filed by the respondents, namely, Anamika Kumari or such other persons who are going to be affected and after hearing - 4 - one and all the opinion of the Appellate Authority will be rendered afresh. The Court expects that the matter will be given due priority in adjudication since this matter is going on remand and requires due priority in adjudication within a reasonable time frame. It goes without saying that the consequential orders which have been passed pursuant to the order of the Appellate Authority which is contained in annexure- 13 to I.A. No. 616 of 2010, therefore, has to go and is also quashed. This writ application stands allowed. AMIN/ (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)