IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the preference for a statutory appellate remedy over a judicial review under Article 226, and the inapplicability of the Rule against retrospectivity to procedural matters.

JUDGMENT :

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 dated 23.11.2011 of the appellate authority, the Panchayat Secretary of the Gram Panchayat by communication dated 16.05.2012 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.

4. The petitioner did not invoke such remedy of appeal and filed an appeal before this Court which has remained in this Court for another 6 years.

5. We were not inclined to interfere with the orders passed by the learned Single Judge, especially when the discretion exercised by the learned Single Judge was reasonable and could not have been interfered with by this Court even if another view was possible. However, the learned counsel for the appellant vigorously argued for consideration of the matter, especially when the matter has been engaging the attention of this Curt for so long and also by virtue of the orders passed by another Division Bench.

6. Learned counsel for the State resisted the prayer for consideration on merits and pointed out that, even that was done by the District Collector in a specific direction issued by the other Division Bench.

7. We have anxiously considered the contentions raised as also the orders passed by another Division Bench.

8. By order dated 23.01.2023, a Division Bench of this Court noticed the presence, in Court, of the District Magistrate and the District Education Officer who were not in a position to assist the Court as to how there were certain changes in the process of selection. It was noticed that there were two select lists in quick succession and in the first of such select lists the name of the appellant was not reflected whereas the 7th Respondent’s name figured. The case was with respect to the selection and appointment to the post of Panchayat Teacher relating back to the year 2012. The 7th respondent, who had filed the complaint case, was no more interested since he was appointed as a constable in the Police Department. The District Collector was, hence, directed to hold a detailed enquiry and pass a detailed speaking ord