IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15448 of 2008 VIDYANAND THAKUR, Son of Shri Khushilal Thakur, Sub Divisional Education Officer, Saharsa (Sadar), Distt-Saharsa, ……..Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through Principal Secretary, Human Resources Develoment Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Director (Administration)-Cum-Joint Secretary, Human Resources Development, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 3. The District Magistrate, Saharsa……..Respondents. ----------- For petitioner:-Mr. Rajendra Pd. Singh, Sr.Adv. Mr. Mrityunjay Kumar, Adv For State:-JC to GP-13 ------------- 4/ 26.11.2008 Learned counsel for the State is permitted to make corrections in the counter affidavit to show that it is on behalf of Respondent No.2 and not on behalf of Respondent No.3. Similar correction is permitted in paragraph-2 also. Learned counsel for the State has shown the original letter of Respondent No.2 which shows that error noticed above was inadvertent. Heard the parties. Petitioner has challenged his suspension by impugned order dated 29th September, 2008 contained in Annexure-1 on the ground that he has been placed under suspension on pressure of a Minister who wanted one Manju Singh to be selected and appointed to the post of Nagar Parishad Teacher in a High School. It has been submitted that the selection was required to be done by a Selection Committee constituted under the relevant rules of 2006 and petitioner had no specific duty or responsibility in the matter of selection and appointment other than that in the capacity of a member of the Committee constituted of other higher functionaries also. It has further been submitted that from the counter affidavit filed on behalf of Respondent No.2 it would appear that the suspension has been inflicted upon the petitioner on the basis of recommendation by the District functionaries on a so-called enquiry report - 2 - in which it has been vaguely alleged that in the appointment reservation roster was not followed because the roster was not applied separately subject wise but was applied to overall appointment of teachers. Other allegation is that in preparing the panel/merit list of selected candidates only those were considered who turned up for counseling and not all those who had applied. At the present stage, it would not be proper for this Court to go into merit of the allegations in detail. But considering the first submission that there is no specific and special role assigned to the petitioner except that as a member of the Selection Committee in the process of selection and appointment as per rules of 2006, this Court finds that for the alleged lapses in selection and appointment petitioner has been placed under suspension without any just reason. If the grievance of Manju Singh, a claimant was found sustainable in law, the superior authorities in accordance with provision under the rules were always free to entertain her grievance and interfere with the selection process. Instead of that the decision to suspend the petitioner who happens to be the Sub Divisional Education Officer at the relevant place is found to be arbitrary and unfair. Accordingly, the order of suspension contained in Annexure-1 dated 29.9.2008 is quashed. This shall not affect the contemplated proceeding against the petitioner which may proceed in accordance with law. perwez (Shiva Kirti Singh,J.)