IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9173 of 2009 RAJANI KUMARI, D/O SHRI UMESH KUMAR, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-BIRPUR POLICE STATION, NAUBATPUR, DISTRICT-PATNA, AT PRESENT ASSISTANT TEACHER, NEW PRIMARY SCHOOL, KANWADIH, SOHTHA NORTH GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ SOHTHA NORTH POLICE STATION, FALKA DISTRICT- KATIHAR ………… ……………. PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Bihar, Patna 2. The Director, Primary Education, Human Resources Development Department, Bihar, Patna. 3. The District Magistrate, Katihar. 4. The District Superintendent of Education, Katihar. 5. The Block Development Officer , Falka, District-Katihar. 6. The District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority , Katihar through its Chairman. 7. The Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Raj, Sohtha North Police Station, Falka, District- Katihar. 8. The ----------- 2. 11.08.2009 Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing for the state. Petitioner has earlier come before this court for quashing the order passed by the Block Development Officer, Falka, Katihar cancelling her appointment on the post of Panchayat teacher. The impugned order was quashed as the petitioner had taken this plea that conducting Ex-parte inquiry, the Block Development Officer, has passed order cancelling petitioner’s appointment. While disposing of the writ application earlier filed by the petitioner and others analogous C.W.J.C. No. 15222 of 2007, the matter was remitted to the Tribunal constituted under 2008 rules and the Tribunal was directed to consider and decide the matter, giving opportunity for filing show cause and also after giving opportunity of hearing. - 2 - Similarly, the petitioner was also directed to file representation before the Appellate Tribunal. As informed by the counsel for the petitioner, during pendency of the writ petition, one, Shweta Kumari had filed an appeal before the Tribunal which was registered as Appeal Case No. 332/09. The Appellate Authority taking notice of the order passed by this court in the writ application, decided the appeal in the light of direction of this court. It is apparent that the order of this court must have been brought before the notice of the Appellate Tribunal by one of the petitioners as one common representation by all writ petitioners (Annexure-8) was submitted before the District Teachers Appellate Tribunal, Katihar. It shows that all the petitioners including the petitioner in the present writ application had sufficient knowledge about the pendency of appeal. Despite this fact, as submitted by counsel for the petitioner, she did not appear before the Appellate Tribunal. Petitioner’s case is that she was not noticed by the Appellate Tribunal. The issuance of notice to the concerned parties, is essential to give information regarding the pending matter against the concerned persons. If knowledge is already there to the concerned person which is evident from Annexure-8, in that case, taking objection regarding non issuance of notice to the petitioner has got no relevance. I find that the petitioner knowingly did not participate in - 3 - process of the appeal. The Appellate Authority has decided the matter in favour of appellant, Shweta Kumari holding petitioner’s appointment on the post of Panchayat Teacher, as illegal on two grounds; firstly that Shweta Kumari had higher marks than the petitioner who was not noticed to be present and participate in the selection process. Secondly, it is stated that petitioner’s father Umesh Kumar was member of the Selection Committee though he should not have participated in selection process for the reason that his daughter was one of the appellants, he participated in selection process. In this view of the matter, the entire selection process has vitiated as one cannot judge candidature to one’s own relative. One cannot be a judge in one’s own cause. On perusal of the impugned order, I do not find any merit in the application filed by the petitioner. The petitioner has not been able to make out a case for interference in the matter. Counsel for the petitioner has taken one ground that there were other appeals preferred by the petitioners who were parties in the earlier writ application. In their case, different orders have been passed by the appellate authority but the same has not been considered in this case. Leaving apart, direction which has been issued in the appeals preferred by the others, in the case of the petitioner, findings which have been recorded by the appellate authority, it has been held that there is no merit in this application. This writ - 4 - application is dismissed. However, the petitioner is entitled for the salary for the period he has worked. In case he represents for the salary for the period he worked, it should be paid and allowed by the concerned authorities within four weeks from the date of filing of representation by the petitioner. akv/ (Mridula Mishra, J.)