IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8426 of 2009 1. KAVITA KUMARI daughter of Jaiprakash Singh Resident of Village-Chainpur P.S. Goreakothi, District- Siwan 2. Subhas Prasad Son of Adalat Prasad Resident of Village-Saraya, P.S.-G.B. Nagar, District- Siwan. -------------Petitioners Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Human Resources Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Special Secretary-cum-Director, Human Resources Department, Government of Bihar, Patna 4. The District Magistrate, Siwan 5. The District Superintendent of Education, Siwan 6. The Block Development Officer, Goreakothi Block, Siwan 7. The Block Extension Officer, Goreakothi Block, Siwan 8. The Mukhiya, Panchayati Raj, Sarari South, Goreakothi Block, Siwan 9. The Panchayat Secretary, Sarari South, Goreakothi , Siwan 10. Rita Kumari Daughter of Ganesh Prasad Srivastava, Resident of village-Saraiya, P.S. G.B. Nagar, District-Siwan 11. Seema Kumari Daughter of Ganesh Prasad Srivastava Resident of village-Saraiya, P.S. G.B. Nagar, District-Siwan -----------------Respondents ----------- 4. 20.7.2010 Heard the parties. In this writ application petitioners have challenged the order of the tribunal by which petitioners appointment as Panchyat Teachers has been cancelled and directed to fill up the vacancy in accordance with law i.e. by appointing respondent nos. 10 and 11 who were eligible and ought to have been selected. The respondents have appeared. Initially an interim stay was granted and thus an application for vacating stay has been filed. All the pleadings are 2 complete with consent of the parties, the writ application was heard for final disposal at this stage itself. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Tribunal should not interfere in the matter because once panel was prepared as required under the Bihar Primary Panchyat Teachers (Service Conditions and Appointment) Rules, 2006, objection if any had to be taken within one week. Respondents did not raise any objection. No objection having been raised, the challenge to the merit list and the consequence thereof cannot be entertained to the contrary. Respondent nos. 10 and 11 submit that the initial merit list was prepared in the year 2006 and they had immediately challenged the same. Notwithstanding that the second merit list was prepared in 2007 in which petitioners were shown to have been selected. On behalf of petitioner it is then submitted that they had been duly selected following the procedure. These aspects of the matter have not been noticed at all by the tribunal. It is further submitted on behalf of petitioner that when first merit list was prepared, people under that merit list did not take the employment/turned up for counselling, the second merit list was prepared in which name of the petitioners figured and that is how petitioners got selected over and above others. On behalf 3 of the petitioners it is further stated that they had appeared in the proceedings before the tribunal and were not granted adjournment to bring these facts on record. On that very day the matter was finally heard and disposed of by an order, a week later. Learned counsel for the respondents submit that petitioners were noticed, had appeared and made submissions. Thus there was apparently no violation of principles of natural justice. Having considered the matter in my view the tribunal in view of the time limitation as prescribed proceeded in a hurry to dispose of the matter. From perusal of the order of the tribunal it clearly discloses that one part of the story that this was the second counselling the first counselling having been failed to evoke response has not been noticed by the tribunal at all. The tribunal has proceeded as if it is the very first counselling ignoring the claim of the private respondent, the petitioners were selected. That is not the fact. In my view it would be in the interest of justice if the order of the tribunal is set aside and the matter is remanded for fresh consideration after giving opportunity to all the parties to bring on record all evidences they seek rely upon. The tribunal would not be prejudiced in any manner by its earlier order or by observation. Upon 4 materials as the parties may rely upon, the tribunal should decide the matter at the earliest but not later than one month. This is so because all the parties have appeared before this Court and are knowing about the matter being sent before the tribunal. Accordingly, the order dated 14.7.2009 passed by the District Appointment Tribunal is set aside and the matter is remanded for fresh consideration. This writ application stands disposed of. Anand Kr. ( Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)