MANOJ KUMAR DAS Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant, the petitioner before the learned Single Judge, in the writ petition challenged the order of the District Teachers Employment Appellate Tribunal (for brevity 'Appellate Tribunal'), Jehanabad in Complaint Case No.521(44)/2011. As a consequence of the order dtd. 23/11/2011 of the appellate authority, the Panchayat Secretary of the Gram Panchayat by communication dtd. 16/5/2012 removed the appellant from the post of Panchayat Teacher.

(2.) Before the learned Single Judge, the State pointed out a statutory appellate remedy before the State Appellate Authority which was brought in by the Bihar State School Teachers and Employees Dispute Redressal Rules, 2015 (for brevity 'Rules of 2015'). The State asserted that when there is an efficacious alternate remedy, the extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution should not be invoked. The appellant, however, pointed out that when the order was issued, there was no such appellate forum. Hence, a writ petition was filed and there was no reason to send back the petitioner to the appellate authority when the matter had engaged the attention of this Court for five years; from 2012 to 2017.

(3.) The learned Single Judge found that there is a remedy of appeal, though created later by the Rules of 2015, which is more appropriate and broader in scope than that of a judicial review under Article-226. The State Appellate Authority had the powers vested in the Civil Court and could summon witnesses, take evidence, make discoveries and inspection of documents, thus making it a more efficacious remedy. The learned Single Judge also found that the Rule against retrospectivity applies only to statutes which affect vested rights and does not apply to statutes which alter the forum of procedure or the admissibility of evidence or the effect which the Court gives to evidence. When the enactment is with respect to the matter of procedure, then, prima facie, it applies to all actions pending as well as future. The learned Single Judge directed the petitioner to approach the appellate remedy within a period of 60 days, de hors any limitation; which would otherwise affect the admissibility of the appeal.