IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16040 of 2010 MANOJ KUMAR s/o Nawal Kishore , resident of Mohalla- Sahebganj, P.O. Champa Nagar,P.S. Tatarpur (Kotwali), Town and District-Bhagalpur.. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Director, Primary Education Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 3. The District Superintendent of Education,Banka. 4. The Block Education Extension Officer, Rajaun, District- Banka. 5. The Block Development Officer, Rajaun, District-Banka. 6. The Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat- Majhgain Darpa,Block- Rajaun,District- Banka. 7. The Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat- Majhgain Darpa,Block- Rajaun,District- Banka. 8. The Head Minstress, Primary School, Maharana, Rajaun, District- Banka. 9. Binita Kumari d/o Raj Kumar Singh, village + Post + P.S.- Rajaun, District- Banka. ----------- 2 9.11.2010 The petitioner is aggrieved by order passed by the District Teachers Appointment Appellate Authority, Banka in Case nos. 413 and 727, which has been communicated under memo no.AP/715 ,dated 30.12.2009.These orders are Annexures 9 and 10 to the writ petition, which are verbatim the same. By this order, an application of respondent no. 9, Binita Kumari, the tribunal has allowed her application as against her dismissal. She was dismissed on or about 26.10.2007 (effectively 12.11.2007).This order of dismissal has been now set aside and she has been directed to re-instate on the ground that the dismissal order was passed without hearing her or making enquiry in the matter. The petitioner is aggrieved that she was dismissed in the year 2007 and she filed this appeal. She has challenged her dismissal - 2 - order of the year 2007 in 2009 but by then in the vacancy, so caused, petitioner had already been recruited and appointed and was working. He was not made a party in the appellate proceeding. The consequence of the order of the tribunal was that without hearing the petitioner, now petitioner is being dismissed to re-instate respondent no.9. On behalf of petitioner it is submitted that consequent to removal of respondent no.9, petitioner being appointed and perfected his third party right and no order adversely affecting him could be passed in his absence. Thus ,the tribunal was in competent to pass the order in favour of respondent no.9, which adversely affect the petitioner. Having considered the matter, in my view, the petitioner is correct and the writ petition must succeed. As consequent of the order passed by the tribunal adversely affects the petitioner, as is evident from Annexure 15, the communication to the petitioner directing cancellation of petitioner’s appointment, the order of the tribunal cannot be sustained.It is accordingly set aside. The tribunal is directed to make the petitioner a party and after hearing respondent no.9 and the petitioner afresh and considering all objections that may be raised , pass fresh order. It may be noted that the petitioner has raised an issue that he was better qualified then respondent no.9 and had been left out in the original selection wrongly. It would be open to the petitioner to urge all available points, which the tribunal would consider. The tribunal would re-decide the matter within one month - 3 - from the date of production of a copy of this order before the tribunal after due notice to all the parties, including respondent no.9 and any order passed by the tribunal thereafter would operate as against the party and all order issued by the authority pursuant to earlier order of the tribunal would stand superseded. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of. singh (Navaniti Prasad Singh,J)