IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7086 of 2009 1. MD.TANVEER ALAM s/o Md. Shaffiqul Haque, resident of village – Bagdob Block and P.S. Baisi, District- Purnea. 2. Md. Raghib Ahsan s/o Md. Manauwar Iquabal, resident of Basatpur, Tola- Bagadob Block and P.S. Baisi, District Purnea. 3. Md. Ziaur Rehman s/o Abdul Matin, resident of village- Kunharva, P.S and Block- Baisi, District- Purnea. 4. Ghan Shyam Thakur @ Ghanshyam s/o Baldo Thakur, resident of village- Mahesh Bathan, Block and P.S. Baisi, District- Purnea. 5. Md. Zafar Ali s/o Sheikh Salimuddin, resident of village- Madhopur,Block & P.S. Balrampur, District- Katihar. 6. Kumari Rehana Bano,daughter of Md. Islam, resident of village- Habdong, Block and P.S. Baiki, District- Purnea. 7. Rahmati d/o Aziz Ansari, resident of village& P.O. Puranganj, Block & P.S. Baisi, District- Purnea. 8. Nargis Parveen w/o Firoz Khan, resident of village- Sugwa Mahanandpur, Block & P.S. Baisi, District- Purnea Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 3. The District Teacher Employment Appellate Tribunal, Purnea through its Chairman. 4. The Member of the District Teacher Employment Appellate Tribunal, Purnea. 5. The District Superintendent of Education, Purnea. 6. The Block Development Officer, Block- Baisi, P.S. Baisi, District- Purnea. 7. The Block Education Extension Officer, Baisi, P.S. Baisi, District- Purnea. 8. The Panchayat Secretary of the Gram Panchayat Sugwa Mahanandpur, P.S. Baisi, District- Purnea. 9. Md. Magrub Alam s/o Md. Khwaza Alam, resident of village- Adampur, P.O Azarail, P.S. Balrampur, District- Katihar. 10. Mr. Muntakhab Alam s/o not known to the petitioners, resident of village- Vizahare,P.O. Kusum, P.S. Balia Belon, District- Katihar. 11. Mr. Ahay Prasad Yadav s/o Sri Doman Lal Yadav, resident of village- Gyandob, P.S. Amaur, District- Purnea. 12. Mr.Rakesh Kumar Thakur s/o Sri Vishwanath Thakur,resident of village- Mahesh Bathana, P.O. Charaiya, P.S. Baisi, District- Purnea. 13. Sri Shanker Prasad Sah s/o not known to the petitioners, resident of village, P.O. and P.S. Amaur, District- Purnea. 2 14. Mr. Aashish Kumar s/o Sri Kamleshwari Yadav, resident of village- Adarsh Nagar (Phulakiyan), P.O. & P.S. Ghogha, District- Bhagalpur. 15. Md. Shamshir Alam s/o Md. Sabir Alam, resident of village Mehasia, P.S. Baisi, District- Purnea. 16. Mr. Deepak Kumar Thakur s/o Sri Vishwanath Thakur, resident of village- Mehash Bathana, P.S. Baisi, District Purnea. ----------- For the Petitioners : Mr.Rajendra Prasad Singh, Sr.Adv. and M/s Rajeev Kumar Singh, Nawal Kishore Singh and Rakesh kr.Singh. For the respondents: G.P.-6. 7 6.8.2010 Petitioner by this writ application challenged the order dated 19.5.2009 passed by the District Teacher Appointment Appellate Tribunal, Purnea. By the said order, the tribunal has set aside the selection process, which was started in 2006 but actually carried out on 16.12.2008 for selecting Panchayat Teachers in relation to Gram Panchayat Raj Sugawa Mahanandpur under Purnea district on the ground that the first set of counseling was set aside and re-counseling was to be held. The decision to re-counseling was taken on 8.12.2008 fixing 16.12.2008 as the date for counseling. It was ordered that notices were sent under certificate of posting. Some of them appeared for counseling. Some complaints were made that notices were not received by the complainants. Mr.Rajendra Prasad Singh, learned Senior Counsel in support of the writ petition submits that notices having been sent and the date was known to all, if persons did not appear then counseling cannot be said to be invalid. 3 Counsel for private respondents has pointed out that earlier counseling was held in 2007 , no one knew about subsequent counseling. The whole thing was managed by a handful persons. The tribunal has rightly noticed that the persons with lower marks are the only were turned up for counseling and all persons with high marks did not turn up for counseling and appealed to the tribunal. In that view of the matter, prima facie, the tribunal appears to be correct. However, Mr. Singh raised a point of jurisdiction. He submits that it is elementary law that before a party can be punished, he must be heard, that is the basic principle of natural justice. He further submits that the petitioner’s services have been terminated as a consequence of order of the tribunal, which has serious refraction till petitioner was not heard in the matter. Having considered the matter, in my view, the order of the tribunal may be correct and not following the principal of natural justice makes it fatal. In that view of the matter, the order, as contained in Annexure 1 cannot be sustained. It is accordingly set aside. The matter is being remanded to the tribunal for fresh hearing after due notice to all the parties and after serving the parties with all materials which the tribunal would rely on. As the matter has become old and it relates to implementation or termination of employment of a large number 4 of persons, it is expected that the tribunal would expedite the matter and conclude hearing within two months from the date of production of a copy of this order. Let it be noted that so far as petitioners are concerned, they have now adequate notice of the proceeding before the tribunal, it would be their duty to approach the tribunal and ascertain the date fixed in the matter and take copy of materials which they think relevant from the tribunal. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of. singh ( Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)