NILAM KUMARI DAUGHTER Vs. GITA KUMARI AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this intra Court appeal under Clause 10 of Letters Patent of this Court, challenge is posed to the order, dated 10.02.2014, passed by a learned single Judge, in CWJC No. 12310 of 2013, whereby the learned single Judge has allowed the writ application, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, by Gita Kumari (respondent No. 1). The said Gita Kumari had preferred the writ application, giving rise to the said CWJC No. 12310 of 2013, assailing order, dated 29.04.2013, passed by the District Teachers Appointment Appellate Authority (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal), in Case No. 429 of 2008, whereby the learned Tribunal had cancelled her appointment as Panchayat Teacher and had directed the Panchayat Secretary of Gram Panchayat, Tharbitia, to appoint the appellant, Nilam Kumari, against the said post. The appellant herein, Nilam Kumari, was also the appellant before the learned Tribunal.

(2.) ON perusal of the order passed by learned single Judge under appeal, it would transpire that the order of the Tribunal, dated 29.04.2013, was challenged by respondent No. 1 on the ground, inter alia, that the Tribunal, before passing the said order, did not ensure service of notice of the complaint upon respondent No. 1, filed before the Tribunal, by the appellant.

(3.) FROM the order under appeal, it also appears that the learned single Judge, in order to satisfy himself, as to whether the notices were, in fact, served upon respondent No. 1 or not, had called for the original records of Case No. 429 of 2008, which was disposed of by the Tribunal by order, dated 29.04.2013, impugned in the writ proceeding. Learned single Judge, upon examining the original records, concluded that in the original complaint filed on 20.01.2009, not even a word was whispered before the Tribunal as regards illegality in selection and appointment of respondent No. 1, Gita Kumari, and, in fact, such an application was filed only on 27.09.2010, though, in the meanwhile, the appellant had filed as many as five separate applications. On 27.09.2010 itself, the Tribunal had passed the order for issuance of notice upon respondent No. 1 fixing 18.10.2010 as the date for taking up the matter. The Tribunal did not record, in its subsequent order, as to whether the earlier order, dated 27.09.2010, passed directing issuance of notice upon respondent No. 1, was at all complied with or not. By a subsequent order, dated 16.11.2010, yet another notice was ordered to be issued by the Tribunal to respondent No. 1. The Tribunal, without giving any indication in its order, as regards service of notice, passed yet another order, on 12.09.2011, for issuance of notice, upon respondent No. 1, through registered post. In another order, dated 11.10.2012, the Tribunal recorded that the appellant had taken no steps for service of notice upon respondent No. 1. Upon perusal of the original records of the Tribunal, learned single Judge found that the Tribunal was not maintaining properly the records of a judicial proceeding and doubted the correctness of the fact that notices were sent by registered post on 24.11.2012. It also appears, as has been found by learned single Judge, on the basis of original records, particularly, the order, dated 03.12.2012, that the notice, alleged to have been issued, on 24.11.2012, to respondent No. 1 by registered post had been returned back to the Tribunal with endorsement of the postal peon to the effect that addressee was not traceable on the given address. The Tribunal, peculiarly enough, recorded, on 03.12.2012, in its order, that notice was evidently served upon respondent No. 1 and fixed next date of the case as 19.12.2012. Learned single Judge, in such circumstance, found that the Tribunal could not have passed the order, dated 03.12.2012, recording that the notices were evidently served on respondent No. 1 - the writ petitioner.