IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11017 of 2009 1. Shankar Prasad, son of Ganesh Prasad, resident of village Mirchaiganj, P.O. + P.S. Nardiganj, District Nawada. 2. Manoj Kumar, C/o Raj Baran, resident of village + P.O. Khanaita, P.S. Belaganj, District Gaya. 3. Priti Kumari, D/o Ashok Kumar Paswan, resident of village + P.O. Gola Bazar, District Nawada. 4. Anuj Kumar Rajak, son of Ganauri Rajak, resident of village + P.O. + P.S. Nardiganj, District Nawada. 5. Ashok Kumar Paswan, son of Sri Kailash Paswan, resident of village Amnawa, P.O. Bedai, P.S. Islampur, District Nalanda 6. Malti Kumari, D/o Basant Pandit, resident of village + P.O. Oda, P.S. Nardiganj, District Nawada. 7. Baliram Prasad Singh, son of Late Vidya Singh, resident of village + P.O. Oda, P.S. Nardiganj, District Nawada 8. Abhay Samrat, son of Vinay Kumar Chaudhary, resident of village Rajaur, P.O. Sabdiha, Nardiganj, District Nawada. 9. Sanjay Kumar, son of Late Baleshwar Prasad, resident of village Pandruja, P.O. + P.S. Belaganj, district Gaya. 10. Pradeep Kumar, son of Naresh Paswan, resident of village Khanaita, P.O. + P.S. Belaganj, District Gaya. 11. Anshu Rani, D/o Kamla Prasad, resident of village Murgiya, P.O. + P.S. Islampur, District Nalanda. 12. Mridula Kumari, wife of Arun Singh resident of village Dahaur Bigha, P.O. +P.S. Telhara, District Nalanda. 13. Snehlata Aarti, wife of Sudhir Kumar, resident of village + P.O. Narayanpur, P.S. Telhara, District Nalanda. 14. Rajeev Ranjan, son of Ganauri Prasad, resident of village Amnawa, P.O. Bagach, P.S. Islampur, District Nalanda. 15. Satish Paswan, son of Vidyadhar Paswan, resident of village Gola Bazar, P.S. Kauwakol, District Nawada. 16. Sanjeev Kumar, son of late Kameshwar Prasad, resident of village Dhurgaon, P.S. Bikramganj, District Nalanda. 2 17. Shobha Kumari, D/o Girija Paswan, resident of village + P.O. Dhurgaon, P.S. Ekangarsarai, District Nalanda. 18. Md. Bajiruddin, son of Md. Nejamuddin, resident of mohalla Phulwan Saviet, Bhedauri, P.O. + P.S. + District Nawada. 19. Md. Iqbal Arif, son of Md. Mosiruddin, resident of village Chistinagar, Phuwarisarif, Bhadauni, District Nawada. 20. Salma Khatoon, D/o Md. Ibrahim, R/o Mohalla Phulwarisarif Bhadauni, P.S. Nawadah, District Nawadah 21. Anguri Khatoon, D/o Md. Raza, resident of Chisti Nagar, Phulwarisarif, Bhadauni, Nawada. 22. Tabassum Jahan, D/o Md. Z.A. Mohsin, Chistinagar, Phulwarisarif, Bhadauni, District Nawada. 23. Muneshwar Paswan, son of Late Ramfal Paswan, resident of village + P.O. + P.S. Yakangar, District Nalanda. 24. Md. Barik Khan, son of Md. Muslim, resident of village + P.O. Manail. P.S. Akbarpur, District Nawadah…………………………………Petitioners Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. The Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Director, Primary Education, Government of Bihar, Patna. 4. The District Superintendent of Education, Nawada. 5. The Block Development Officer, Nardiganj Block, Nardiganj, Nawada. 6. The Pramukh, Nardiganj Panchayat Samiti, Nardiganj, Nawada. 7. Block Education Extension Officer, Nardiganj Block, Nardiganj, Nawada……Respondents Ist Set 8. Sheo Nandan Prasad Sinha, son of name not known to the petitioner, Member District Teacher Appointment Tribunal, Nawada, resident of At + P.O. + P.S. Rajgir, District Nawada…………………………………..…….Respondents 2nd Set ----------- 4 26.11.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the State and also learned counsel for respondent 3 no.8. 24 petitioners have challenged an order passed by the District Teacher Employment Appellate Authority, Nawadah contained in Memo No.136 dated 23rd March, 2009, annexed as Annexure-1 by which the entire process of counselling, held on 24.01.2009 for second phase of appointment of teachers in Nardiganj Block, has been cancelled. From bare reading of the said order of the Appellate Authority it appears that, on some letter of the Director, Primary Education, Bihar, Patna dated 02.03.2009 received by the Authority, in reply to its letter dated 09.2.2009, this order has been passed. The letter of the Director, referred to in the order, is Annexure-4 to the writ application. Annexure-4 shows that, in reference to the letter of the Authority dated 09.02.2009, it was clarified to the Authority that if any complaint is received in respect of irregularities being committed in the counselling, the Authority has to hold hearing, make an enquiry and if it comes to 4 the finding that irregularities had been committed in the counselling, it was competent to cancel the same. In the counter affidavit of the State as well as in the counter affidavit of respondent no.8, one letter of the District Superintendent of Education-cum- District Programme Co-ordinator, Bihar Education Project, Nawada dated 06.02.2009 has been annexed as Annexure-S/2. This letter shows that, on receipt of several complaints on telephone, District Superintendent of Education, Nawada had gone to Nardiganj and had held an inspection. In the inspection, he had found several anomalies and illegalities being committed in the counselling. In this letter, District Superintendent of Education has mentioned that a Lecturer of the Training College, Nawada was made Observer and he was present during the entire process of counselling. Therefore, it is suggested in the letter that a report may be asked for from the Observer also. The letter of the Observer dated 14.02.2009 is also annexed as Annexure-S/4 with the 5 counter affidavit of respondent no.8 which is also addressed to the Member of the District Teacher Employment Appellate Authority, Nawada. This letter gives a picture as to what was happening in the counselling, as an eye-witness. It is clear that both the letters are addressed to the Member, District Teacher Employment Appellate Authority and, therefore, it is obvious that the same could be treated as complaint by the Authority. A question is whether the Authority could act on those complaints only and without hearing and without holding any enquiry itself District Teacher Employment Appellate Authority, constituted under Rule 18 of the Bihar Panchayat Prarambhik Shikshak (Niyojan Avam Seva Sart) Niyamvali, 2006 (as amended by Amendment Act 2008) is a statutory body. It has been empowered under law to decide the complaints in the matter of employment of Panchayat/Prakhand Teachers made under the provisions of the Rules. A statutory Authority is under legal obligation to apply its own mind in the matter placed 6 before it and in compliance to the Principles of Natural Justice, hear the parties who may be concerned in the matter and may be affected by its order and, thereafter pass appropriate orders. This was made clear in the letter of the Director also as contained in Annexure-4. In very unequivocal terms, it is mentioned in the letter of the Director that if any complaint is brought to the notice of the Appellate Authority, it has to hold a hearing, make an enquiry, come to its own finding with regard to irregularities committed in the appointment or process of appointment and then pass orders. Clearly, in this case the Appellate Authority had bypassed those requirements. It has merely accepted the reports of the District Superintendent of Education and the Observer and, on the basis of the same, it has sought guideline from the Department. The guideline of the Department (Annexure-4) was clear that it had to hold a hearing, make an enquiry and then come to its independent finding. Apparently, the said guidelines have been overlooked and 7 the Appellate Authority has merely acted upon the complaints received by it from the District Superintendent of Education and the Observer. In the circumstances, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the Appellate Authority has failed to exercise its jurisdiction, as vested in it, in terms of Rule 18 of the Rules. As a result, this Court finds the order of the Appellate Authority as unsustainable in law. The same is hereby quashed. The matter is remitted back to the Appellate Authority to hold a hearing, make an enquiry on the complaints received by it from the District Superintendent of Education and the Observer after calling for the original records and come to a definite finding with regard to the legality and validity or otherwise of the counselling held pursuant to which petitioners were appointed. This enquiry shall be completed by the Appellate Authority positively within the time frame fixed under the Rules for deciding such matters. Till that date, even if petitioners join, they will not draw their 8 salary. This writ application is, accordingly, allowed. BT (J. N. Singh, J.)