Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1147 (PAT)

Gautam Kumar v. State Of Bihar

2012-08-17

NAVIN SINHA

body2012
ORDER Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the State and for Respondent Nos.4 and 5. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 13.5.2011 passed by the District Teachers Employment Appellate Tribunal, Bhojpur at Arrah in Appeal Case No.14/10. It cancels the appointment of the petitioner and directs engagement of Respondent No.5. 3. Learned counsel for both sides sought to persuade the Court to go into the merits of the matter and consider their claims and counter claims. The Court is satisfied that the stage for examining the merits has not arisen as the order suffers from apparent error in the decision making process. 4. The orders of the Tribunal are final. No appeal lies against it. The power for judicial review under Article-226 of the Constitution of India over the order of the Tribunal has appropriately to be confined first to infirmities in the decision making process. If the proceedings before the Tribunal culminating in an order suffer from apparent infirmity in the decision making process, that is sufficient to vitiate the order. 5. The petitioner is stated not to have been impleaded as a party respondent and was not heard before the order was passed. He was to be directly affected by the order. He had a right to defend his appointment. The question at this stage is not whether his defence would be acceptable or unacceptable. Matters pertain more to procedures. Any order passed in violation of the Principles of Natural Justice is void ab initio like a still born child. 6. The Tribunal, if it was setting aside the appointment of the petitioner and directing appointment of Respondent No.5 on a challenge by the latter, had a primary and foremost duty to ensure that all necessary parties were impleaded, noticed and heard. This power of the Tribunal was integral to its duty to dispense justice. The manner in which the Tribunal has exercised its quasi judicial does not meet the approval of the Court. It condemns the petitioner unheard. 7. The order dated 13.5.2011 is therefore set aside. The matter is remanded to the Tribunal. This power of the Tribunal was integral to its duty to dispense justice. The manner in which the Tribunal has exercised its quasi judicial does not meet the approval of the Court. It condemns the petitioner unheard. 7. The order dated 13.5.2011 is therefore set aside. The matter is remanded to the Tribunal. Liberty is granted to the parties to raise all questions of law and facts as they may be advised before the Tribunal which shall then pass a reasoned and speaking order within a maximum period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order before it by either of the parties. 8. The interim order ends with the disposal of the writ application. 9. The application is allowed.