IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.18379 of 2010 1. Ramnath Singh, S/o-Late Nageshwar Prasad Singh, Laboratory Technician, Yatindra Narayan Astang Ayurved College Champanagar, Nathnagar, Bhagalpur. 2. Chandrika Singh, S/o-Late Baiju Singh, Laboratory Technician, Yatindra Narayan Astang Ayurved College Champanagar, Nathnagar, Bhagalpur. 3. Dr. Manik Chandra Mishra, S/o-Narayan Mishra, Compounder, Yatindra Narayan Astang Ayurved College Champanagar, Nathnagar, Bhagalpur. -Petitioners. VERSUS 1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Joint Secretary, Department of Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Director, Deshi Chikitsa, Department of Health, Government of Bihar, Patna. 4. The Principal, Y.N.A. Ayurved College, Champanagar, Nathnagar, Bhagalpur. –Respondents. ----------- 02 18.11.2010 The petitioners are technical staff in Y.N.A. Ayurved College, Champanagar, Nathnagar, Bhagalpur. This is the College for Ayurvedic medicinal studies. It was taken over with effect from 1985 and the services of the petitioners were taken in the year 1997 with effect from 1985. They are aggrieved by the impugned order issued by the Principal of the said College dated 25.04.2009 and subsequent order as contained in memo dated 05.10.2010. By the impugned memos, the Principal without notice to the petitioners held that as per Government circular in order to get increment petitioners ought to have cleared the Hindi Noting and Drafting examination and not having done so the increment granted to them right from the beginning was wrong and recoverable and, as such, has ordered for recovery of the said amount from the petitioners. On behalf of the petitioners two submissions are made. Firstly, they being technical staff were not required to pass the Hindi Noting and Drafting examination. Subsequently, when decision was - 2 - taken to require them to do so, they have passed the examination. Further, in fact, they have done their matriculation in Hindi. In view of the Government circular itself, they are not required to take the said examination at all. Thus, the whole impugned action is bad. The second ground is that no such order would have been passed without noticing the petitioners and hearing the petitioners in this regard. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the State, in my view, so far as the first issue is concerned, consideration thereof would arise only after petitioners are heard by the appropriate authorities. It is well settled that no order prejudicing any person can be passed without hearing them. Here, the order having grave civil consequences has been passed by the Principal without even seeking any clarification or explanation from the petitioners. That cannot be sustained. I, accordingly, set aside both the impugned orders and direct the Principal to issue due notices to the petitioners to which petitioners will give their reply and any action that the Principal would take would be by disposal of that representation by speaking order and communicating the same to the petitioners. Till such time that is done the orders as impugned, being order dated 25.04.2009 & 05.10.2010, are set aside. Any amount recovered in the meantime would be refunded to the petitioners immediately with next monthly payment. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of. Trivedi/ (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)