IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13149 of 2010 RUPESH KUMAR RANU s/o Sri Gourishanker Singh,resident of village- Tilakpur, P.S. Sultanganj, District-Bhagalpur,at present Panchayat Shikshak, Primary School,Tilakpur Harjan,Sultanganj, District- Bhagalpur. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR . 2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Human Resources Development, Bikash Bhawan, Patna. 3. The Director Primary Education, Bikash Bhawan, Patna. 4. The District Magistrate, Bhagalpur. 5. The District Superintendent of Education –cum- District program Co-ordinator, Bhagalpur. 6. The District Teacher Employment, Appellate Authority, Bhagalpur. 7. The Block Education Officer, Sultanganj, Bhagalpur. 8. The Mukhiya Gram Panchayat, Tilakpur, Bhagalpur. 9. The Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat, Tilakpur, Bhjagalpur. 10. The Headmaster , Primary School Tilakpur, Harijan, Sultanganj,Bhagalpur. 11. Rakesh Chandra s/o Yogendra Prasad Yadav, resident of village- Nasopur, P.S. Sultanganj, District- Bhagalpur. ----------- For the Petitioner : M/s Bishnukant Dubey, Panchu Ram and Ranjit Kumar. For respondents : A.C. to G.P.4. 2 27.8.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 5.7.2010 passed by District Teacher Appointment Appellate Authority, Bhagalpur in Appeal Case no. 289 of 2009.The said appeal had been filed by one Rakesh Chandra, as is apparent from the order of the tribunal . The tribunal has categorically held that as the matter relates to the appointment of Shiksha Mitra prior to coming into force of Bihar Primary Panchayat Teacher (Appointment and Condition of Service) Rules, 2006, no relief 2 could be granted to the complainant . Having so held, the tribunal goes ahead and examined the selection process and hold that the complainant ought to have been appointed in place of the petitioner and as such ordered for petitioner’s dismissal though expressed its inability to order appointment of the said Rakesh Chandra. This order is under challenge. Learned counsel for the petitioner challenges the order on two counts, firstly, with reference to the merit list, as prepared, it is clearly shown that Rakesh Chandra had , in fact, had obtained 19 marks much above the petitioner but he had applied for post against Male-backward class and as such he could not in any event displace the petitioner, who was of un- reserved category. The other ground for attacking the order of the tribunal is that once the tribunal decided that the complainant could not be granted any relief, that should have ended the matter. The tribunal can then not travel beyond the complaint and take cognizance of facts on its own and decide the matter . Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State, in my view, the writ petition has to succeed and the impugned order has to set aside. Firstly, it must be remembered that the tribunal has been created under rule 18 of 2006 Rules. It is a tribunal of limited jurisdiction. It lacks inherent jurisdiction of Chief Judicial Magistrate to take cognizance of offences suo motu or the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the 3 Constitution to act suo motu. That action of the tribunal would be clearly without jurisdiction. On that count alone, the writ petition has to be allowed and the impugned order is to be set aside. But I may also notice one another factual issue. The complainant before the tribunal being Rakesh Chandra, as per the merit list itself had applied for selection as a male-backward class person. Even if the tribunal was to hold that he has to be selected, he could not displace the petitioner, who was not general category. On that count also the tribunal has erred. Thus, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The consequential order terminating the service of the petitioner would also be se aside. singh ( Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)