The tribunal's jurisdiction is limited to the inter-party dispute and cannot conduct a roving inquiry into the entire selection process beyond the scope of the complaint.

Jyoti Saran, J.

1. Heard Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ramadhar Singh, GP-25 for the State.

2. With the consent of the parties the writ petition has been heard with a view to final disposal at the stage of admission itself.

3. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 14.12.2012 passed by the District Teacher Appointment Appellate Authority, Sitamarhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the Appellate Authority') in Case No. 36/2012, whereby the Appellate Authority has proceeded to cancel the appointment of the petitioner as a Panchayat Teacher in Navshrijit Prathmik Vidyalaya, Lohkhar Tola, Supaina, Gram Panchayat Raj, Bishunpur, Gonahi in the district of Sitamarhi with further direction to the Appointment Committee to take steps for appointment afresh.

4. The notice issued to respondent no.10, who was the appellant before the Appellate Authority, has been received by her father but she has not responded to the notice and an affidavit of jointness has since been filed by the petitioner.

5. The complaint filed by respondent no.10 is at Annexure 5, which runs into three paragraphs and makes averment against one Ambalika Kumari, who according to the complainant with lesser marks, was granted preference over the complainant leading to her appointment. In other words, respondent no.10 was aggrieved by the appointment of one Ambalika Kumari and the ground raised was that she had obtained lesser marks than the complainant. The petitioner in the circumstances was not arrayed as a party, rather strangely the Appellate Authority while examining inter-party contest in between respondent no.10 and Ambalika Kumari has proceeded to hold a roving enquiry into the selection process as a whole to conclude that the appointment of one Mahendra Purbey and Asha Kumari was illegal. Thus, while cancelling the appointment of these two persons, namely, Mahendra Purbey and Asha Kumari a direction has been issued to the Appointment Committee to make fresh appointment from the merit list. Clearly the Appellate Authority has exceeded its jurisdiction for neither there was any complaint against the appointment of the petitioner nor there was any complaint against Mahendra Purbey.

6. As I have mentioned at the outset, the complaint at Annexure-5 runs into three paragraphs and the only grievance of respondent no.10 is that one Ambalika Kumari has been wrongly given preference over her candidature. The Appellate Authority while examining the inter-party dispute has exceeded its jurisdiction to comment upon the selection process even in absence of any complaint in this regard. The issue as regarding jurisdiction vested in the Appellate Authority constituted under the Bihar Panchayat Elementary Teachers (Appointment and Service Condition) Rules came up for consideration before a Division Bench in a matter reported in 2016(1) PLJR 836 (Puja v. The State of Bihar and ors.) and the opinion of the Division Bench in paragraph 5 read along with its conclusion at paragraph 9 would squarely apply to the case of the petitioner herein, which reads as follows:

5. .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... ....

we may clarify that complaint is not an appeal for justice in the present context. While entertaining a complaint or a grievance, its jurisdiction is limited to what is complained against. It cannot undertake a roving inquiry into all aspects of the matter connected or unconnected with the complaint, it has no power of superintendence. Thus, when Nita Kumari filed a complaint/ appeal before it, challenging the selection of Nitu Sinha, the jurisdiction of Tribunal was restricted to this inter-party dispute. The Tribunal, on its own, could not enlarge on its own jurisdiction to become supervisory authority over the entire selection process and pass judgment thereon. Any judgment, which was to be rendered by the Tribunal, was restricted to the lis inter-party.

9. Thus, in a matter of dispute between Nita Kumari and Nitu Sinha,