IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12677 of 2009 ABDUL KARIM SON OF SUJAUT ALI RESIDENT OF VILLAGE RAUTARA, P.S. KORHA, KATIHAR Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, KATIHAR. 2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, KATIHAR. 3. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, KATIHAR 4. THE B.D.O. KORHA BLOCK, KATIHAR. 5. THE BLOCK EDUCATION EXTENSION OFFICER, KORHA, KATIHAR 6. THE MUKHIYA GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ, RAUTARA, KATIHAR. 7. THE PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ RAUTARA, KORHA, KATIHAR 8. THE DISTRICT TEACHER EMPLOYMENT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KATIHAR THROUGH ITS MEMBER. 9. POONAM KUMAR DAUGHER OF LATE RAM KRISHNA SAH RESIDENT OF MOHALLA CHHATH POKHAR, TATMA TOLI, BHATHA BAZAR, PURNEA. ----------- 7 20/12/2010 Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for private respondent no. 9 and learned counsel for the State, this writ application can be disposed of on a very limited question. Stand of the petitioner is that he was not heard or any notice was issued to him by the District Teacher Employment Appellate Authority, Katihar which is impugned order in the present writ application which has been annexed as annexure-7. Since order of the - 2 - Appellate Authority has directly affected interest of the present petitioner, therefore, violation of principles of natural justice has been committed and it is a serious error on the part of the Authority because no person can be condemned without being heard. Private respondent no. 9 does not seriously dispute this factual position that probably notices were not issued to the petitioner and the order was passed based on merits of the issue which were placed before them. Whatever be the basis for coming to such a conclusion, requirement of hearing is a must and petitioner should have been given an opportunity before the order dated 24.08.2009 came to be passed. Impugned order dated 24.08.2009 passed in Appeal Case No. 932/09 is hereby quashed on the only ground that petitioner was not issued notice and heard on the issue before passing the impugned order. Let the Appellate Authority issue notice to the petitioner, hear him on the questions raised by the private respondent n. 9 and decide the matter afresh within a period of three months from the date of production or communication of a copy of this order. This Court, in fact, directs the - 3 - petitioner to appear before the Appellate Authority with a copy of this order for the Authority to do the needful and no separate notice as such is required to be issued to him to cut short the time frame in adjudication of the issue. This writ application is allowed with the direction/observation as aforesaid. AMIN/ (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)