IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11257 of 2010 1. PRAVIN KUMAR S/O AMBIKA PRASAD R/O VILL.- SULTANPUR, P.O.- MAKANPUR, P.S.ҳ WARSALIGANJ, DISTT.- NAWADAH Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE DIRECTOR, PRIMARY EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, NAWADAH 4. THE DEPUTY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER, NAWADAH 5. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, NAWADAH 6. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, WARSALIGANJ, DISTT.- NAWADAH 7. THE BLOCK EDUCATION EXTENSION OFFICER, WARSALIGANJ, DISTT.- NAWADAH 8. THE PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ- MANJAUR, BLOCK- WARSALIGANJ, DISTT.- NAWADAH 9. THE MUKHIA, GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ-MANJAUR BLOCK - WARSALIGANJ, DISTT.- NAWADAH 10. THE MEMBER, DISTRICT TEACHERS APPOINTMENT APPELLATE AUTHORITY, NAWADAH, DISTT.- NAWADAH ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Arun Kumar For the State :G.P.6 2 12.8.2010 Petitioner was selected and appointed as Primary Panchayat Teacher in the year 2007. Accordingly, he was issued appointment letter and he started working when suddenly by ex parte orders of Block Development Officer he was terminated .He challenged the termination before this Court and this Court gave him liberty to file an appeal before the appellate tribunal, which had by then been constituted. The order of this Court is Annexure-5. Petitioner accordingly filed an appeal being case no. 101 of 2009 before the District Teacher Appointment Appellate Authority, Nawadah, which heard the matter and decided the same in favour of the petitioner by order dated 24.12.2009 (Annexure 1) .The - 2 - tribunal ordered that the termination was bad and as such he would be continued in service, meaning thereby, he would have to be reinstated, the termination being wrong. Petitioner joined and started working once again. Petitioner is aggrieved by the subsequent order passed by the tribunal being order dated 4.1.2010 (Annexure 9). By the subsequent order itself passed in the same very case, even though the proceeding stood terminated before the tribunal, by order dated 24.12.2009, the tribunal reviewed its order and held that in view of letter of the State Government dated 16.4.2009, no fresh recruitment was permissible on the post that was vacant in 2008 till a proper advertisement was issued, for filling up the vacancy and, as such, the tribunal recalled its earlier order and held that no relief could be granted to the petitioner. This was an ex parte order of review. Petitioner submits firstly that the tribunal has no power to review its order and secondly even on facts, the Circular of the State Government could not apply. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State, in my view, both the contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner must succeed .It must not be forgotten that the tribunal is exercising quasi judicial function. It is deciding a lis. It is a statutory authority and that being so it is well settled that the power of review i.e. the power of substantive review does not lie on an authority unless it is statutorily conferred. This is not a matter of procedural review which is inherent in every tribunal. Reliance can be made in this connection to - 3 - the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Grindlays Bank Limited Vs. Central Government Industrial Tribunal & ors. since reported in 1981 SC 606 and in particular 13 thereof what is stated in relation to the power of review. Thus, once the tribunal had passed the order, it has no power to review and thus the impugned order has to be set aside on this count alone. However, as the circular of the State Government has been brought on record as well, it is clear that it does not apply to the petitioner. Petitioner had complained about his wrongful removal. The tribunal held that he was wrongly removed. Inevitable consequence of such a finding is re-instatement and not re-employment. The circular can never say that even though he was a person who was wrongly removed, cannot be reinstated. The circular even if it says so is arbitrary and ultra vires under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It may also be noted that plenary jurisdiction of the tribunal to adjudicate the matter cannot be limited and/or controlled by executive order. It is a statutory quasi judicial tribunal and is not subject to administrative control in its quasi judicial function by the executive order. Thus, on all counts, the writ petition must succeed and it is allowed accordingly. The order of the tribunal dated 4.1.2010 (Annexure 9) is quashed. Petitioner will be reinstated accordingly. However, the petitioner shall be entitled to his salary only for the period for which he has actually worked. singh (Navaniti Prasad Singh,J)