IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7793 of 2009 Md. Jamal Hussain, Son of Abdul Quddus, resident of village-Jamalpur, P.O.& P.S. -Jamalpur, District-Darbhanga. -Petitioner. VERSUS 1. The State of Bihar, through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Bihar, Patna. 3. The Director, (Primary Education), Human Resources Development Department, Bihar, Patna. 4. The District Magistrate, Darbhanga. 5. The District Superintendent of Education, Darbhanga. 6. The Block Development Officer, Kiratpur, District-Darbhanga. 7. The Block Education Extension Officer, Kiratpur, District-Darbhanga. 8. The Panchayat Secretary, Jamalpur Gram Panchayat, Kiratpur Block, District- Darbhanga. 9. Anil Kumar, Son of Sri Ghuran Yadav, resident of village-Jamalpur, P.S.- Jamalpur, District-Darbhanga. 10. Member, District Teacher Selection Appellate Tribunal, Darbhanga. -Respondents. ----------- For the Petitioner : M/s Md. Nadim Seraj & Mr. Iqbal Asif Niazi, Advocates. For the Respondent No.9 : Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Rajeev Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr. Nawal Kishore Singh, Adv. For the State : GP-12 ------------ 03 02.08.2010 The petitioner by this writ application had challenged the order as passed by the District Teachers Appointment Appellate Authority, Darbhanga dated 08.06.2009 in Appeal Case No.161 of 2009 upon a petition filed by one Anil Kumar, who is respondent no.9 herein. Upon the writ petition taken up, by order dated 10.07.2009, while issuing notice to respondent no.9, the impugned order of the Tribunal was stayed. Respondent no.9 has since appeared and filed a petition for vacating stay. Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh, learned Senior Counsel - 2 - appearing on behalf of the respondent no.9 and presses the application for vacating stay. Having heard the parties, I deem it proper to dispose of the matter with consent of parties at this stage itself. Having perused the order of the Tribunal as impugned, it appears that in course of the selection process one Lal Bihari Yadav was first in the panel. Petitioner, Md. Jamal Hussain was second and respondent no.9, Anil Kumar was third. Lal Bihari Yadav gave in writing that he was not interest. Petitioner was then selected but in the order it is alleged that he did not consent for being appointed and, as such, respondent no.9 as per the Tribunal was then rightly selected. Petitioner has raised a fundamental issue. He submits that admittedly as per panel he was above respondent no.9 whose appointment has been held to be valid, as such, as found by the District Magistrate-cum-Collector earlier the selection of respondent no.9 was wrong and that of petitioner was correct. Thus, the order of the Tribunal causes severe prejudice to the petitioner as well as adverse civil consequences. The submission would further be that in such situation the Tribunal could proceed to give those findings much less findings adverse to the interest of petitioner, Md. Jamal Hussain, without making petitioner a party or hearing the petitioner in the matter. On behalf of the petitioner, it is pointed out that as per the order of the Collector, the appointment of respondent no.9 was found to be irregular and it was found that petitioner had been - 3 - wrongly deprived of selection. This right of petitioner was taken away by the Tribunal without even granting opportunity to the petitioner to defend his case. Mr. Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent no.9 points out that this Court had found in the earlier writ petition that the order of the Collector was without jurisdiction. Be that as it may, once an order was passed, which found petitioner entitled to certain relief and, the matter was then sent to the Tribunal for adjudication, then it was incumbent upon the Tribunal, which was acting as a quasi judicial authority, to hear all interested persons before it could give any finding, that is, a fundamental principle of natural justice. The violation whereof renders the order not voidable but void-ab-initio. Thus, I have no hesitation in quashing the order of the Tribunal which disentitled the petitioner to any relief without hearing the petitioner. The order being quashed the matter is remanded to the Tribunal with a direction that the Tribunal must hear all the parties who are likely to be affected by the order and then come to a finding. This Court may notice the large number of cases that are coming up pointing out this fundamental defect in orders of the Tribunals. Let it be noted that Tribunals are acting as quasi judicial authority and they are bound by principles of natural - 4 - justice before they pass any order which would adversely affect any person. They have got to make that person a party and hear him before deciding contesting interest. Any decision taken in absence of parties would be unenforceable. So far as the aggrieved parties are concerned, in view of the large number of cases which are being filed with this singular grievance, I deem it proper to request the Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna to immediately issue appropriate circular for the guidance of Tribunals in this regard so that unnecessarily this Court is not flooded with spate of litigations. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna immediately. The writ application, thus, stands disposed of. Trivedi (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)