IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13546 of 2007 Amrish Kumar, son of Sri Murli Prasad Yadav, resident of Village Janki Nagar, P.O. and P.S. Janki Nagar, Dist. Purnia. -------- Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Regional Director, Higher Education, Purnia Division, Dist. Purnia. 3. The District Collector, Katihar, Dist. Katihar. 4. The Block Development Officer, Balarampur, P.S. Balarampur, Dist. Katihar. 5. The Block Education Extension Officer, Balarampur, P.S. Balarampur, Dist. Katihar. 6. The Secretary, Gram Panchayat Raj, Kirora, P.O. and P.S. Balarampur, Dist. Katihar. -------- Respondents With CWJC No.1929 of 2008 Dhiraj Kumar Das, son of Yugal Kishore Das, resident of Village+P.O. Mahishal, P.S. Balarampur, Dist. Katihar. ------- Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Director, Primary Education Department, Bihar, Patna. 3. The District Magistrate, Katihar. 4. The Deputy Development Commissioner, Katihar. 5. The District Superintendent of Education, Katihar. 6. The Block Development Officer, Balrampur, Telta, Katihar. 7. The Block Extension Education Officer, Balrampur (Telta), Dist. Katihar. 8. The Chairman, Selection Committee of Primary School Teacher, Gram Panchayat Kirora, P.s. Balrampur, Dist. Katihar. 9. The Mukhya, Gram Panchayat Kirora, P.S. Balrampur, Dist. Katihar. 10. Panchayat Sachiv cum Secretary, Gram Panchayat Kirora, P.S. Balrampur, Dist. Katihar. 11. Amrish Kumar Yadav, son of Murli Yadav, resident of Village Binowa Gram, P.S. Murliganj, Dist. Purnea. ---------- Respondents ----------- 2 21.11.2011 Heard Mr. Sushant Kumar Das, learned counsel for the petitioner Amrish Kumar and Mr. Md. Rahmatullah for the petitioner Dhiraj Kumar Das as also learned counsel for the State in both these cases. 2 Both of these cases virtually are complementary to each other and, therefore, have been heard together. It is not in doubt that there is only post of Panchayat Teacher for which both the petitioners with others were applicants. The case of the petitioner, namely, Dhiraj Kumar Das, however, is that he having secured 61% marks in the qualifying examination was the best candidate and was also placed at serial no.1 of the panel but somehow the Mukhia of the Panchayat and the Panchayat Secretary had appointed petitioner Amrish Kumar, who had secured only 57% marks and was placed below in the panel. It is the case of the petitioner Amrish Kumar that pursuant to such a decision taken by the competent authority, he was also appointed on 20.2.2007, inasmuch as, according to Mr. Das, the petitioner Dhiraj Kumar Das, though at serial no.1 of the panel, did not appear in course of counseling Mr. Das has also submitted that the petitioner Amrish Kumar, having been appointed on 20.2.2007, had also started working and his such appointment for the first time came in clouds at the instance of the petitioner Dhiraj Kumar Das, who had 3 moved the Block Development Officer assailing the selection and appointment of the petitioner Amrish Kumar. As a matter of fact, Mr. Das had submitted that the appointment of the petitioner Amrish Kumar was sought to be cancelled at the instance of Dhiraj Kumar Das by the Block Development Officer on 23.9.2007 even without affording any opportunity of hearing to him. The first writ application CWJC No. 13546 of 2007 was filed in this court on 10.10.2007 by the petitioner Amrish Kumar assailing the aforementioned order of the Block Development Officer dated 23.9.2007 which in effect was an order of termination of the petitioner Amrish Kumar. It however appears that despite the aforesaid order of the Block Development Officer, the petitioner Amrish Kumar had continued in service and accordingly, petitioner Dhiraj Kumar Das had filed the other writ application, CWJC No. 1929 of 2008, for virtually implementing the order of the Block Development Officer by way of removal of the petitioner Amrish Kumar and his own appointment on the post of Panchayat Shikshak on the vacancy caused on account of 4 removal of the petitioner Amrish Kumar. While the said writ application had remained pending, the petitioner Dhiraj Kumar Das also filed a complaint before the District Teachers' Appellate Authority, registered as Appeal No. 15 of 2008. The said appeal no. 15 of 2008 was disposed of in favour of the petitioner Dhiraj Kumar Das canceling the appointment of the petitioner Amrish Kumar by an order dated 6.7.2009, wherein, the authority had held the appointment of the petitioner Amrish Kumar to be illegal and had issued a consequential direction for appointment of the petitioner Dhiraj Kumar Das on the post of Panchayat Shikshak. It is the case of the petitioner Amrish Kumar that since he was not heard by the authority before passing of the order dated 6.7.2009 he had again moved before the District Teachers Appellate Authority, Katihar alleging the order dated 6.7.2009 to be not only in violation of the principle of natural justice but also vitiated on account of the fraud committed by the petitioner Dhiraj Kumar Das in suppressing the filing of the writ application by him in this case and the matter being subjudice before this Court. 5 On the said application of the petitioner, Amrish Kumar, the Authority by an order dated 26.8.2009 had stayed the operation of the order dated 6.7.2009 awaiting the result of the writ applications. Mr. Das had initially submitted that the Block Development Officer had no power or jurisdiction to pass an order and as such, the writ application by Amrish Kumar CWJC No. 13546 of 2007 against the order of the Block Development Officer dated 23.9.2007 is fit to be allowed. In the considered opinion of this Court, such submission is only noted for its being rejected, inasmuch as, earlier the decision as with regard to the alleged illegality/irregularity in the appointments of Panchayat Teacher in terms of Rule 18 of Bihar Panchayat Shikshak Rules 2006 was to be resolved by the Block Development Officer alone and none else. In that view of the matter, this Court would not find that the impugned order dated 23.9.2007 to be without jurisdiction. It is a different thing that as the impugned order dated 23.9.2007 had also adversely affected the case of the petitioner Amresh Kumar, the Block Development Officer 6 ought to have issued notice and heard him but, from the tenor of the order, it does not appear that the Block Development Officer had heard the petitioner Amresh Kumar before passing his order dated 23.9.2007. That being so, this Court would find the impugned order passed by the Block Development Officer dated 23.9.2007 to be bad in law and the same is accordingly quashed. At the same time, this Court would find that the District Teachers Appellate Authority has also committed the same mistake while allowing the application filed by the petitioner Dhiraj Kumar Das by an order dated 6.7.2009. True it is that Mukhia and Panchayat Secretary were heard by the Authority but from the order of the Authority dated 6.7.2009 it does not transpire that the petitioner Amresh Kumar was also noticed and/or heard. In that view of the matter, this Court also cannot approve the order dated 6.7.2009 passed by the Authority allowing the application of the petitioner Dhiraj Kumar Das. The District Teachers Appellate Authority, with a judicial member was created with a hope and belief that the basics of administrative law will be known to 7 such a person and the orders would be passed in keeping with the requirement of a quasi judicial proceeding. The manner in which the District Teachers Appellate Authorities has however been conducting themselves including in the present case has left a lot to be desired. The very fact that the District Teachers Appellate Authority had no power of review and/or staying in its order after passing the same and yet went to entertain the application filed by the petitioner Amresh Kumar and had passed the order dated 26.8.2009 staying the order dated 6.7.2009 is reflective of the fact that all norms of judicial discipline and fair play have been thrown to winds by the District Teachers Appellate Authority. The Authority has to work and pass its order strictly in accordance with the power and jurisdiction vested to it under Rule 18 of the 2006 Rules which does not vest power of review on any ground whatsoever. In that view of the matter, this Court would also quash the order dated 26.8.2009 passed by the Authority. This Court having already quashed the order dated 23.9.2007 passed by the Block 8 Development Officer as also the order dated 6.7.2009 and 26.8.2009 passed by the Authority would now direct the District Teachers Appellate Authority, Katihar to re- hear the matter specially when both the petitioners have appeared and are represented through their counsel as would appear from the order dated 6.7.2009 and 26.8.2009. The Authority, therefore, will now hear all the concerned parties as with regard to the validity of selection and appointment of the petitioner Amresh Kumar and pass a final order within a period of four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. It will be also open for the Authority to look into all the records of selection and including the records of counseling and if it is found that the petitioner Dhiraj Kumar Das though placed at serial no.1 of the panel was deliberately avoiding his presence in course of counseling though he had a notice of such counseling served on him as prescribed in the Rule, the appointment of the petitioner Amresh Kumar shall not be disturbed but, if on the contrary it is found that the petitioner Amresh Kumar, despite having much lower marks to the petitioner Dhiraj Kumar 9 Das, had been appointed by way of bestowing favour and without ensuring service of notice of counseling to the petitioner Dhiraj Kumar Das, the appointment of Amresh Kumar shall be cancelled and in his place, the petitioner Dhiraj Kumar Das shall be appointed. In order to expedite the matter, this Court would direct both the petitioner Amresh Kumar and Dhiraj Kumar Das to appear before the Authority on 15.12.2011 and the Authority thereafter shall fix a date of hearing whereafter, the proceeding shall continue on day-to-day basis and would be concluded as early as possible and in any event, within the prescribed time frame as indicated above. With the aforementioned observations and direction, this application is disposed of. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)