IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11834 of 2010 1. MUKESH KUMAR SINGH S/O SRI VISHWANATH SINGH R/O VILL.- NANDANPUR, P.S.- TARIYA, DISTT.- CHHAPRA (SARAN) Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION CHHAPRA (SARAN), DISTT.- CHHAPRA, SARAN 4. THE MUKHIYA OF RAJ HAMIDPUR PANCHAYAT, P.S. BAIKUNTHPUR, DISTT.- GOPALGANJ 5. THE PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, RAJ HAMIDPUR PANCHAYAT, P.S. BAIKUNTHPUR, DISTT.- GOPALGANJ 6. DHURENDRA KUMAR SINGH S/O BABAN KUMAR R/O VILL.- KHARA AATA, P.S.- BAIKUNTHPUR, DISTT.- GOPALGANJ ----------- 2 9.8.2010 Petitioner was selected as Panchayat Teacher in the year 2006. His selection was challenged by respondent no.6 (Dhurendra Kumar Singh) ,who alleged before the Appellate Tribunal that on 28/29.11.2006, he has gone to give consent letter before the Selection Committee as he was first in the merit list but the same was not accepted. He then tried to submit his consent letter on 30.11.2006, which not having been accepted , he later on complained to the Block Development Officer, who enquired into the matter but nothing was done. Ultimately in the year 2009, the present appeal was filed by respondent no.6 before the District Panchayat Teacher Appellate Authority, Gopalganj. The appellate authority called for records from Panchayat Secretary even though appointment of the petitioner was in challenge, petitioner was neither made party to the proceeding nor noticed nor granted any opportunity of hearing and without hearing the - 2 - petitioner, the tribunal by the impugned order dated 22.5.2010 in Appeal Case no. 21 of 2009 has set aside the appointment of the petitioner and directed respondent no.6 to be appointed on the post. Petitioner challenged the said order on three counts, firstly, he submits that a selection that was made in the year 2006 cannot be challenged as late as in 2009, secondly, he submits that respondent no.6 wrongly stated that 30.11.2009 was the last date for submission of consent letter, in fact, the last date was 29.11.2006 and the Block Development Officer has found that respondent no.6 had made an attempt to file his consent letter on 30.11.2006,which was beyond the period fixed and lastly, it has been submitted that in any view of the matter petitioner not having been made a party, no order adverse to the petitioner be issued by the tribunal. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State, I am satisfied that there has been gross violation of principle of natural justice. Petitioner’s selection and appointment was specifically and individually under challenged, yet he was not made a party that in my view is sufficient ground to vitiate the order, in question. In that view of the matter, the impugned order of the tribunal , as noticed above, is set aside and the matter is remanded to the tribunal for fresh hearing in accordance with law. The tribunal would have to issue notice to all the parties like the petitioner, who are likely to be affected by the order of the tribunal . All of them have to be granted opportunity and only then order can be passed. All parties - 3 - would be free to raise all such objections, which they are entitled in fact and in law . The tribunal would decide the matter in accordance with law including the points, as noticed above. The tribunal would endeavor to decide the matter at the earliest not later than two months from the date of production of a copy of this order before the tribunal. Any order issued consequent to the order of the tribunal is also accordingly held to be ineffective. With the aforesaid observations and direction, this writ application stands disposed of. singh (Navaniti Prasad Singh,J)