Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1079 (PAT)

Anuj Kumar Thakur v. State of Bihar

2012-08-03

NAVIN SINHA

body2012
ORDER Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. 2. The petitioners are aggrieved by order dated 9.5.2012 in Appeal No. 48 of 2010 passed by the District Teachers Appointment Appellate Authority, Katihar. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that they had filed Appeal Case No. 48 of 2010 contending that after selection appointment letters were not being provided to them for no justifiable reason. The Tribunal wrongly attributed haste to the petitioners when the matter had remained pending for over two years without a final decision. Referring to Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the order it was submitted that the Block Development Officer only stated that the Block Education Officer was not producing the selection record before him and that he had not received any specific order for issuance of the appointment letter from any superior authority. In the circumstances, he had sought directions with regard to future action. Likewise, the Block Pramukh stated that instructions had been received on 28.12.2010 to issue appointment letters by the Block Development Officer and the District Education Officer when she was present along with them and the candidates but due to disturbance created by some unsocial elements the appointment letters could not be distributed. She had submitted a report on 30.5.2011 to the Block Education Officer mentioning that she was willing to provide appointment letters on the aforesaid dates. 4. Counsel for the State submits that a person selected and empanelled may not have an indefeasible right for issuance of the appointment letter. 5. Even if the counsel for the State be correct in his submission, it shall not vest untrammeled powers in them to withhold the appointment letter after selection for no justifiable reason and in an arbitrary manner. The materials in the order of the Tribunal as discussed above adequately reflect that there is no legal impediment in the issuance of the appointment letter but which appears to have been hindered on the date of distribution at the behest of unsocial elements. That clinches the issue with regard to the rights of the petitioners. 6. The Tribunal is the creation of a statutory power to decide a lis with regard to appointment of Panchayat Teachers. It is a quasi judicial body as distinct from an administrative body. An administrative body merely decides issues in principle dealing with regulations and policies. That clinches the issue with regard to the rights of the petitioners. 6. The Tribunal is the creation of a statutory power to decide a lis with regard to appointment of Panchayat Teachers. It is a quasi judicial body as distinct from an administrative body. An administrative body merely decides issues in principle dealing with regulations and policies. A quasi judicial body decides a dispute after considering the contentions and counter contentions, as an adjudicatory body, a fundamental requirement of a society governed by the Rule of law. It is the duty of the executive to comply the orders of a judicial or quasi judicial Tribunal unless it is questioned, varied or modified, set aside in Appeal. Just as the executive cannot give any directions to the quasi judicial body for the manner in which power to be exercised by the latter, a quasi judicial body in discharge of its adjudicatory function can seek information from the executive to decide the lis. The quasi judicial body cannot abdicate its jurisdiction to adjudicate seeking guidance from the executive. Such an action is completely subversive of the Rule of law. Disapproving exercise of quasi judicial powers in deference to Executive instructions it was observed in (1973) 3 SCC 871 (R.M. Subbaraj vs. Kodaikanal Motor Union (P) Ltd.): – “11. It is manifest that the State Transport Appellate Tribunal not only referred to the Government Order as indicating the basis for giving preference for the grant of permits but also applied the Government Order in assessing the competing claims of the contenders for permits. Once it is found that a Tribunal which under the statute has to deal with applications for permits in a judicial manner is directed by the Government to adopt any specified method for assessing the merits of the applicants and the Tribunal takes into consideration such direction of the executive, the judicial determination by the Tribunal is polluted.” 7. The Court on consideration of Paragraph 7 of the order of the Tribunal is satisfied that it has committed gross irregularity in procedure when it seeks directions and guidance from the executive with regard to the desirable course of action. The duty of the Tribunal was either to grant relief or to decline relief, for reasons to be specified in both. The duty of the Tribunal was either to grant relief or to decline relief, for reasons to be specified in both. The abdication of jurisdiction by the Tribunal in favour of the executive to hold that now circumstances had changed and the vacancies would go to future selection obviously is not sustainable. 8. Claims for appointment arising out of the impugned order of the tribunal clearly classify as an exception under Paragraph-III of the order dated 9.7.2012 no. 645 issued by the Education Department as not amenable to inclusion in the fresh selection process. They fall within the category of disputed vacancies. 9. The nature of the order passed by the Tribunal compulsorily necessitates a reference to the order in (1993) 4 SCC 119 ( R. K. Jain vs. Union of India) for the urgent need to impart some basic legal training to administrative personnel manning quasi judicial process observing as follows: – “67. The tribunals set up under Articles 323-A and 323-B of the Constitution or under an Act of legislature are creatures of the statute and in no case can claim the status as Judges of the High Court or parity or as substitutes. However, the personnel appointed to hold those offices under the State are called upon to discharge judicial or quasi-judicial powers. So they must have judicial approach and also knowledge and expertise in that particular branch of constitutional, administrative and tax laws. The legal input would undeniably be more important and sacrificing the legal input and not giving it sufficient weightage and teeth would definitely impair the efficacy and effectiveness of the judicial adjudication. It is, therefore, necessary that those who adjudicate upon these matters should have legal expertise, judicial experience and modicum of legal training as on many an occasion different and complex questions of law which baffle the minds of even trained judges in the High Court and Supreme Court would arise for discussion and decision.” 10. The order of the Tribunal date 9.5.2012 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Tribunal for passing fresh appropriate orders in light of the present discussion within the statutory period prescribed. 11. The writ application is allowed.