IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4093 of 2009 Baijnath Singh & Ors . Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors . ----------- 2. 21.07.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. The petitioners were granted the benefit of A.C.P. on 6.12.2007. It has been withdrawn on 9.3.2009. In the meantime, petitioners 4 and 2 are stated to have superannuated. The counter affidavit states that the petitioners were not entitled to the benefit as they had not passed the Accounts examination. The order of cancellation is prospective in nature with immediate effect. Arguments were sought to be made on behalf of the petitioners with regard to the non requirement for passing of the departmental examination etc which the Court not consider necessary to deal with at this stage. The specific assertion of the petitioners at Paragraph 19 of the writ application that the impugned order dated 9.3.2009 was in violation of the principles of natural justice has not been denied in the counter affidavit. Additionally petitioners 4 and 2 have also retired. Counsel for the State submits that if 2 ineligibility to the promotion is acknowledged by the petitioners, question of natural justice have no application. There can be no quarrel with that preposition as admitted facts need not be proved and there is no need for enquiry. But for that there has to be a specific admission. Presently the petitioners have urged that there was no requirement to pass a departmental examination. Whether their stand be correct or incorrect is a matter for adjudication and for which they deserve to be heard before the benefit of the earlier order was withdrawn. Had the impugned order been reasoned disclosing the ground perhaps the argument of the State may have been well founded if it had not been denied by the petitioners. The impugned order itself is non speaking in nature on merits except for that it was to be operative prospectively. The order in its present form only to the extent that it visits the petitioners with adverse consequences cannot be upheld. Since the impugned order itself states that it shall not be operative prior to 6.3.2009, there is no need for the Court to quash the entire order. The impugned order is held to be unsustainable only to the extent 3 that it purports to operate after 6.3.2009. The matter is remanded to the respondent no. 2, Chief Engineer who shall now proceed to issue a show cause notice to the petitioners calling upon them for reasons to be specified in the notice why the order granting them A.C.P. should not be recalled with prospective effect. After the petitioners furnish their reply within the time to be indicated in the show cause notice itself, let fresh appropriate orders be passed in accordance with law. The writ application stands disposed. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)