IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No 2965 of 2010 1. SUKESH KUMAR S/O LATE DEO NARAYAN SHARMA R/O VILL & P.O.TARA BARIARPUR,P.S. KHODAWANDPUR,DISTT-BEGUSARAI,AT PRESENT POSTED AND WORKING AS PRAKHAND TEACHER IN GOVT. UPGRADED MIDDLE SCHOOL DAULATPUR,ANCHAL KHODAWANDPUR,DISTT-BEGUSARAI Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR,PATNA 3. THE DIRECTOR,PRIMARY EDUCATION BIHAR,PATNA 4. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE BEGUSARAI 5. THE DEPUTY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER -CUM-CHAIRMAN ,DISTRICT EDUCATION ESTABLISHMENT COMMITTEE BEGUSARAI 6. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION BEGUSARAI 7. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER null KHODAWANDPUR,DISTT-BEGUSARAI 8. THE BLOCK EDUCATION EXTENSION OFFICER KHODAWANDPUR,DISTT- BEGUSARAI 9. THE MUKHIYA ,GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ DAULATPUR,ANCHAL- KHODAWANDPUR,DISTT-BEGUSARAI 10. THE PANCHAYAT SECRETARY,GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ DAULATPUR,ANCHAL- KHODAWANDPUR,DISTT-BEGUSARAI 11. THE DISTRICT TEACHER EMPLOYMENT APPELLATE AUTHORITY null BEGUSARAI,THROUGH IT'S MEMBER 12. RAGINI KUMARI D/O SHRI BRAJ KISHORE MAHATO R/O VILL MOHANPUR,P.O.DAULATPUR,P.S.KHODAWANDPUR,DISTT-BEGUSARAI 13. RINKU KUMARI D/O TILAKESHWAR PRASAD R/O VILL MOHANPUR,P.O.DAULATPUR,P.S.KHODAWANDPUR,DISTT-BEGUSARAI ,AT PRESENT POSTED AND WORKING AS PANCHAYAT TEACHER IN NEWLY CREATED GOVT. PRIMARY SCHOOL BEGAMPUR PATTI,ANCHAL KHODAWANDPUR,DISTT- BEGUSARAI ----------- 3 11.08.2010 The petitioner was selected as a Panchayat Teacher in the year, 2007. Respondent No 12, though had higher marks and was much higher in the merit list, was not selected because she did not turn up for counselling. Respondent No 12, accordingly, in the year 2008, filed an application before the Block Development Officer (BDO), who was the designated authority in terms of Rule 18 of the Bihar Primary Panchayat Teachers (Service Condition and Appointment) Rules, 2006. The said proceedings were registered as Case No 1 of 2008 but before they could be concluded, the BDO was substituted by the appellate Tribunal and, as 2 such, proceedings were transferred to the appellate Tribunal. The appellate Tribunal called for the records and after hearing respondent No 12 and the officials and examining the records, set aside the selection of the petitioner and directed that in place of petitioner, the Committee may consider selecting respondent No 12. Petitioner has challenged this order of the Tribunal dated 21.12.2009 as contained in Annexure-15. Petitioner submits firstly that complaint, if any, as against the merit list had to be made within seven days in terms of the Rules aforesaid. Even otherwise, in terms of Rule 18 of the Rules aforesaid, the complaint had to be made within 30 days to the BDO. Neither of the two time periods have been complied with, still complaints were entertained. He secondly submits that as would be apparent from the impugned order itself, even though petitioner’s selection was directly an issue, petitioner was neither made a party to the proceedings nor he was noticed nor he was granted opportunity of hearing in the matter and, as such, the order, in so far as it is against the interest of petitioner, cannot be said to be valid. Having considered the matter, in my view, the impugned order of the Tribunal has to be set aside on this second short issue itself. It is well settled that where an appointment of an individual is under challenge, no order to his prejudice can be passed without hearing him or an opportunity to defend him is given. In this case undisputedly, petitioner was not even made a party much less given an opportunity to defend himself. In that view of the matter, the order as against the petitioner, as passed by the Tribunal, is void and unenforceable. The order is, thus, 3 set aside. However, the matter is remanded to the Tribunal for fresh consideration after hearing the parties. No notice need be issued to the petitioner but on petitioner’s appearing with a copy of this order before the Tribunal, the Tribunal would notice the complainant (respondent No 12) and summon the records and officials once again and then hear and decide the matter in accordance with law. As the matter is old, Tribunal would be well advised to conclude the proceedings within a period of two months from the date of production of a copy of this order before it. As the order of the Tribunal has been set aside, till final order is made by the Tribunal once again, petitioner would continue to work as such and will not be disturbed. With these observations and directions, the writ application is disposed of. M.E.H./ (Navaniti Prasad Singh)