JUDGEMENT 1. Petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 10.10.2009 passed by District Teachers Appointment Appellate Authority, East Champaran in Case No. 187 of 2008. Petitioner had applied for recruitment as a Panchayat Teacher. She alleges that on the date of scrutiny of papers, no one had turned up except her. Her papers were examined but when the merit list was prepared she was shown fourth in spite of the fact that three other persons above her had not turned up for verification of their papers. Those three persons had certificates, which were either invalid or not recognized by the State. She immediately made a complain in writing and the matter was then referred to the Appellate Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal has dismissed her application by the impugned order. 2. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and with their consent, this application is being disposed of at this stage itself. 3. On reading the impugned order, it is apparent that there is absolutely no consideration of the factual and legal issues raised on behalf of the petitioner. They have even not been noticed much less answered. It must be remembered that the Appellate Tribunal is exercising quasi judicial function. A quasi judicial authority has not only to hear the parties but also has to take note of the arguments, however, misconceived they may be and then give a finding on various issues raised. This is what is commonly referred to as a "reasoned order". In absence of a reasoned order, the order is void and not enforceable. Reasons are link between the facts found and the decisions arrived. The decision must show conscious consideration of the issues of facts and law. In the present case, the impugned order does not take notice of the issues raised. It does not discuss the same nor does it gives factual finding in respect of the issues raised. That renders the order void and liable to be set aside. It is accordingly set aside. The matter is remanded to the Appellate Tribunal for fresh consideration and passing a reasoned order. 4. Before parting I must observe that the Appellate Tribunal has gone into the question of legality of appointment of two Urdu Teachers. Unless a lis is raised in that regard by the applicant before the Tribunal, the tribunal cannot decide the same. The matter is remanded to the Appellate Tribunal for fresh consideration and passing a reasoned order. 4. Before parting I must observe that the Appellate Tribunal has gone into the question of legality of appointment of two Urdu Teachers. Unless a lis is raised in that regard by the applicant before the Tribunal, the tribunal cannot decide the same. The Tribunal is not acting as an advisor to the Panchayat Secretary. It is to resolve the dispute as between the parties. The dispute must be raised by the applicant. The resolution is permissible only thereafter. 5. Another aspect of the matter is that no order can be passed against the person, who is not a party to the case much less without notice to the said party This I am observing because the matter of the two Urdu Teachers was not before the Tribunal. As apparent from the order itself, the official respondents sought a clarification. This was misconceived. The Tribunal is not an advisory body. Even if the Tribunal had to pass an order in that regard it could not have done so without making those persons a party and without notice and hearing them. The order of the Tribunal is thus set aside in toto and the matter is remanded for fresh consideration in accordance with law. 6. As the matter has been pending for almost two years, the matter should be disposed of expeditiously preferably within a period of three months. 7. With the aforesaid observations and direction, the writ petition is allowed.