IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.404 of 2010 1. GHULAM SHAHID S/O MD. YAQUB R/O VILL.- BIBI KA BANGRA, P.O.- PIPRA NARAYAN, P.S.- BARHARIA, DISTT.- SIWAN. VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE DIRECTOR, PRIMARY EDUCATION GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE MEMBER DISTRICT TEACHERS APPOINTMENT APPELLATE AUTHORITY, SIWAN, DISTT.- SIWAN 4. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION SIWAN, DISTT.- SIWAN 5. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER BARHARIA, DISTT.- SIWAN 6. THE BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER BARHARIA, DISTT.- SIWAN 7. THE MUKHIYA, GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ BALAPUR P.S.- BARHARIA, DISTT.- SIWAN 8. THE PANCHAYAT SECRETARY GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ- BALAPUR, P.S.- BARHARIA, DISTT.- SIWAN. ----------- 03 19.11.2010 The petitioner, pursuant to Bihar Panchayat Teachers (Appointment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2006, applied for the post of Panchayat Teacher. Petitioner’s academic qualification is Maulvi. He was selected and appointed as a general teacher. His appointment came to be challenged before the District Teachers Appointment Appellate Authority, Siwan. The Appellate Authority without notice to the petitioner and without petitioner being made a party held that the petitioner was being Maulvi and had been employed as a teacher which was in contravention of Rule-6 of the aforesaid Rules. The Appellate Authority has accordingly directed dismissal of petitioner. Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh, learned Senior Counsel - 2 - appearing in support of the writ petition submits that the order of the Tribunal cannot be sustained on two counts. Firstly, he submits that the Tribunal could not have passed adverse order without petitioner being made a party and heard. Secondly, he submits that amongst several Maulvi that were recruited petitioner was the highest in merit. He further submits that there being a post for Urdu teacher, petitioner should have been adjusted there. Having heard the learned counsels, I do not propose to decide the second issue which is left open for the petitioner to urge before the Tribunal. So far as the first issue is concerned that renders the order of the Tribunal void ab initio for violation of principles of natural justice. That being so, I remand the matter to the Tribunal for fresh consideration in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of production of a copy of this order before the Tribunal. The Tribunal after notice to all parties and hearing them would pass appropriate orders. Accordingly, Annexure-1 is quashed because the matter is being remanded for fresh consideration. With these observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of. Trivedi/ (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)