IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No 5617 of 2010 1. JITENDRA KUMAR RAM S/O SRI CHANDI RAM R/O MOHALLA- NORTH HAZIPUR, WARD NO. 13, P.O. AND DISTT.- KHAGARIA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER CUM SECRETARY ZILA PARISHAD MADHYAMIK SHIKSHA NIYOJAN PANEL NIRMAN SAMITI, KHAGARIA 3. DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, KHAGARIA 4. MR. YOGENDRA PASWAN, MEMBER ZILA SHIKSHAK APILIYA PRADHIKAR, KHAGARIA 5. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ZILA PARISHAD, KHAGARIA *** For the petitioner :Mr Vivekanand Vivek, Advocate For the S t a t e :Mr Prahalad Kumar Bhagat, AC to AAG 5 For the B o a r d :Mr Nikesh Kumar, Advocate *** 3 28.09.2010 Counsel for the Zila Parishad is present. No counter affidavit is filed inspite of orders, as passed in this case six months back. This case smacks of mala fide and illustrates how curative positions are abused. Petitioner, in the year 2006, was selected and appointed as Secondary Teacher in Zila Parishad under the 2006 Rules. No one challenged his appointment. In 2009 after the District Teachers Appointment Appellate Tribunal was constituted, the Tribunal, on 08.08.2009, suo motu issued notice to the petitioner as to why his appointment be not cancelled. At this stage itself, I may state that Tribunal, being a Tribunal of limited jurisdiction, had no suo motu jurisdiction in the matter. It has no jurisdiction akin to Section 190 (1) (c) of the Criminal Procedure Code to take suo motu action. It has no 2 jurisdiction like this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Its jurisdiction is limited to disputes which are raised before it. It cannot itself raise a dispute and then decide it. This very initiation appears to be mala fide, in fact if not in law. Then what is made is that the notice is issued on 08.08.2009 fixing 08.08.2009 as the date and on 10.08.2009, mala fide an order is issued stating as if there was an application by the petitioner before the Tribunal for adjudication of some dispute and upon that adjudication, the Tribunal finds petitioner’s appointment to be bad, a falsehood from beginning to the end. The Tribunal also, in its order, states with reference to State Government’s notification, that the Tribunal has been created to investigate the irregularity in appointment of Teachers. I am afraid, the notification does not say so. It authorises the Tribunal to adjudicate disputes with regard to appointment and service conditions. Thus seen, the Tribunal usurped jurisdiction where it totally lacked. The order of the Tribunal cannot be sustained. Thus, the order, as passed on 10.08.2009 in Appeal Case No 326 of 2009 being the order of the District Teachers Appointment Appellate Tribunal, Khagaria is set aside. The writ application is allowed and the consequential order (Annexure-6) of the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Khagaria, in so far as it relates to the petitioner, is also set aside. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Khagaria would ensure that petitioner is paid all his remunerations treating him to be continuously in service within a period of three months from today. M.E.H./ (Navaniti Prasad Singh) 3