IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.17456 of 2010 Lokesh Kumar Dubey, S/o-Late Dhruv Narayan Dubey, R/o-Village- Panjwar, Post-Panjwar, P.S.-Raghunatupur, District-Siwan. -Petitioner. VERSUS 1. The State of Bihar through Director Human Resource Department Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Human Resource Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The District Magistrate, Siwan. 4. The District Superintendent of Education, Siwan. 5. The Block Development Officer, Raghunathpur Block, Siwan. 6. The Block Extension Officer, Raghunathpur Block, Siwan. 7. The Mukhiya, Panchayat Raj Panjwar, P.O.-Panjwar, P.S.- Raghunathpur, District-Siwan. 8. The Panchayat Secretary, Panchayat Raj Panjwar, P.O.-Panjwar, P.S.- Raghunathpur, District-Siwan. 9. The Member District Teacher Employment Appellate Tribunal, Siwan. –Respondents. WITH CWJC No.14472 of 2010 Ram Niwash Tiwari, S/o- Shri Bidaya Bhushan Tiwari, R/o- Vill.- Raghunathpur, P.O.+P.S.- RaghunathpuR, Distt.- Siwan, Bihar. -Petitioner. VERSUS 1. The State of Bihar through Education Secretary Education Government of Bihar. 2. The District Magistrate, Siwan. 3. The District Superintendent of Education, Siwan. 4. The Block Education Extension Officer, Raghunathpur Block, Distt.- Siwan. 5. The Block Development Officer, Raghunathpur, Distt.- Siwan. 6. Gopal Singh, S/o- Ramekabal Singh, Mukhiya, Gram Panjawar, Block- P.S. Raghunathpur, Distt.- Siwan. 7. The Secretary, Panjawar Panchayat Block- Raghunathpur, Distt.- Siwan. 8. Devendra Pathak (Teacher) Kashturva Girl High School, Panjawar, P.S.- Raghunathpur, Distt.- Siwan. 9. Lokesh Kumar Dubey, S/o- Late Shri Dhurv Narain Dubey R/o- Vill.- Panjawar, P.O. Panjawar, P.S.- RaghunathpuR, Distt.- Siwan, at present R/o Rajeev Nagar, Road No. 17, P.O. Keshari, P.S. Digha, Distt.- Patna. –Respondents. ----------- (In C.W.J.C. No.17456 of 2010) For the Petitioner :M/s- Tej Bahadur Singh, Sr. Adv., Sunil Singh, & Ranjan Kumar Dubey, Advocates. For the State : Mr. Abhitabh Kumar, AC to GP-IX. For the Respondent No.7 : Mr. Umesh Kumar Mishra, Adv. - 2 - (In C.W.J.C. No.14472 of 2010) For the Petitioner : Mr. Chandra Kant, Adv. For the State : AC to SC-19. For the Respondent No.9: Mr. Ranjan Kumar Dubey, Adv. ------------ 02 15.11.2010 In both these two writ petitions the issues are interlinked. In C.W.J.C. No.17456 of 2010 one Lokesh Kumar Dubey is the petitioner and he seeks implementation of the order of the District Teachers Appointment Appellate Authority, Siwan dated 14/17 August, 2010 as passed in Case No.89 of 2010. By the said order, the Tribunal has inter alia held that upon challenge by the petitioner, Lokesh Kumar Dubey the services of inter alia Sri Ram Niwash Tiwari, Panchayat Teacher should be terminated. Lokesh Kumar Dubey seeks enforcement of this order and challenges the action of the District Superintendent of Education by which he has stayed the implementation of the order of the Tribunal. The second writ petition, being C.W.J.C. No.14472 of 2010, has been filed by Ram Niwash Tiwari challenging the same very order of the Tribunal, being order dated 14/17 August, 2010, as passed in Case No.89 of 2010, by the District Teachers Appointment Appellate Authority, Siwan. In the said writ petition Lokesh Kumar Dubey is respondent no.9 and has appeared. Supplementary affidavits/counter affidavits and rejoinders have been filed. All parties including the Mukhiya of the concerned Gram Panchayat have appeared. In my view, the two interlinked issues are involved and, as such, with consent of parties the two writ petitions have been heard for final disposal at this stage itself. - 3 - The first issue would be whether the District Superintendent of Education has any authority to sit in appeal over the order of the Appellate Tribunal. The second issue is whether the order of the Tribunal is correct or not. If the order of the Tribunal is correct then it is required to be enforced by this Court in terms of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Bhopal Sugar Industries Limited Versus Income Tax Officer, Bhopal since reported in 1961 Supreme Court 182. In my view, so far as the first question about authority of District Superintendent of Education is concerned, this question have been settled by this Court several times. The power to adjudicate such disputes has been conferred on the Appellate Tribunal by Rule-18 of the Bihar Panchayat Teachers (Appointment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2006. Those Rules read as a whole make the Tribunal ultimate authority to decide the disputes. The Rules do not provide that the Tribunal is subject to superintendence by any authority of the State. Thus, the jurisdiction of the Tribunal is final and no authority of the State can sit over it in any manner, to the contrary, they are bound to implement the same. Another aspect is that the Tribunal exercises quasi judicial functions. It is established principle that once a quasi judicial authority has applied its mind and given a decision, which is statutory decision, then no member of the executive in exercise of his executive power can be permitted to disregard and/or interfere with the said order unless there be valid statutory provision in that regards. I may also refer in this connection - 4 - to the Government Notification No.3716 dated 23.10.2008, issued by the Department of Human Resource Development, notified by the orders of the Governor and issued under the signature of Principal Secretary to the Government. This notification was issued consequent to the establishment of the Tribunal wherein the procedures, powers and functions of the Tribunal have been notified by the State Government. In this notification in Clause-Kha (15) State Government has clearly stipulated that from the decision of the Tribunal there shall be no appeal before any authority, meaning thereby, that the order of the Tribunal is final. Thus, seen the District Superintendent of Education had no authority to stay and/or in any manner interfere with the order of the Tribunal, however, he may have dislike or disapprove the order of the Tribunal. Thus, this question is answered in favour of the writ petitioner, Lokesh Kumar Dubey. So far as the second issue is concerned about the validity of the order of the Tribunal, one must refer to the order of the Tribunal and the principal facts as noticed by it. From the perusal of the impugned order of the Tribunal, it appears that upon an application filed by Lokesh Kumar Dubey, the Tribunal entertained challenge as against selection of three persons as Panchayat Teachers. They were Murari Singh, Ram Niwas Tiwari (contesting party) and Vinod Kumar Yadav. All three were noticed by the Tribunal and heard. So far as Vinod Kumar Yadav is concerned, upon enquiry from the Bihar School Examination Board, it was conclusively found that the marks - 5 - sheet submitted by him was forged and fabricated and, as such, the Tribunal ordered cancellation of his appointment. In neither of the writ petitions that finding is challenged. So far as Murari Singh is concerned, the Tribunal has recorded that he was appointed in place of trained teacher. The Tribunal has also noticed that repeated notices were sent to him and upon appearance he was given opportunity to produce certificate of training, which he failed to produce inspite of opportunity given and, as such, drew adverse inference against him. On that count and then treating him to be untrained, the Tribunal cancelled his appointment. This finding is not under challenge before this Court. When it came to the case of Ram Niwas Tiwari, the Tribunal noted that the Bihar School Examination Board certified the marks sheet to be correct. The Tribunal did not find any fault in his appointment but upon an application filed by Lokesh Kumar Dubey, as apparent from the order of the Tribunal and on affidavit that he was wrongly shown absent in the counselling, the Tribunal accepted the affidavit without any further enquiry and held that he had been wrongly left out of consideration. That being so, the Tribunal found that he had 631 marks in Intermediate as against Ram Niwas Tiwary who had 618 marks and, as such, the Tribunal ordered removal of Sri Ram Niwas Tiwari and appointment of Lokesh Kumar Dubey in place of Sri Ram Niwas Tiwari. Sri Ram Niwas Tiwari has challenged this part of the finding of the Tribunal as in favour of Lokesh Kumar Dubey. On behalf of the Ram Niwas Tiwari, it is submitted that - 6 - the selection process was carried out in the year 2006, appointments were made in the year 2007 and petitioner, Lokesh Kumar Dubey was shown absent in counseling. The appointment was then challenged before this Court and subsequently before the Tribunal. From the order of the Tribunal, it is submitted that Tribunal has not referred to the records of the selection process but merely relied on the affidavit filed by Lokesh Kumar Dubey. On behalf of Lokesh Kumar Dubey, it is submitted that the Tribunal has called for the records of the entire selection process and had perused the same and then relied upon the affidavit as filed by him. In my view, it must be remembered that the Tribunal is exercising quasi judicial functions and its orders are the orders at the first and the final instance and is subject to judicial review only by this Court. Thus, the order has to be a self-speaking and self-supporting order. Having perused the order, I do not find even a whisper on the records much less any finding in respect thereof in a slip shod manner. The Tribunal has referred to the affidavit and held that the selecting authorities in order to hide their misdeeds had shown the petitioner, Lokesh Kumar Dubey absent. How the Tribunal came to this finding and what are the facts in support thereof has not even been noticed much less discussed. Having considered the matter, in my view, these are sufficient grounds for setting aside the order of the Tribunal in so far as the Sri Ram Niwas Tiwari is concerned. The order of the Tribunal - 7 - is, accordingly, set aside to the limited extent as it operates against Sri Ram Niwas Tiwari and the matter is remanded to the Tribunal for fresh consideration after due notice to the parties and upon perusal and consideration of the records in detail. The Tribunal would endeavour to conclude the proceedings within a period of six weeks from the date of production of a copy of this order before the Tribunal. With the aforesaid observations and directions, both the writ petitions are disposed of. Trivedi/ (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)