IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.36 of 2011 TETAR DAS, son of late Ruplal Das, resident of Mohalla – Sandallpur, P.O. – Mahendru, P.S. – Sultanganj, District and town of Patna. ----------(Petitioner)/Appellant. Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. The Principal Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Director, Social Security and Disability Directorate, Social Welfare Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 4. The Assistant Director, District Social Security Cell, Patna Collectorate, Patna. --------(Respondents)/Respondents. ******* For the Petitioner : Shri Gyanand Roy, Adv. Shri Sheonandan Mishra, Adv. For the State : Shri K.B. Singh, SC-22 Dr. Rajesh Kumar Singh, A.C. to SC 22 For the Intervenor : Shri Amrendra Kumar Sinha, No.1, Adv. Shri Shailendra Kumar Singh, Adv. ******* 05. 07.04.2011 The present Letters Patent Appeal has been filed against the order dated 04.08.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 10636 of 2010. Learned Single Judge upheld the orders passed by the Authority divesting the appellant of the administrative works in the School as a Headmaster where he was posted. It is contended that the appellant, a blind teacher, was physically disabled and he was working as a Principal of Blind School at 2 Kadamkuan, Patna. Learned Single Judge has dismissed the petition holding that as the appellant was transferred to Darbhanga, he had to go to join at that place and it is also observed that he wants to stay here because appellant’s wife is a permanent employee in Government Secretariat at Patna. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has contended that the order of the learned Single Judge cannot be sustained for the reasons that the order has been passed basing on the intervention application by certain employees posted at Blind High School, Kadamkuan, Patna. It is also contended that copy of such intervention application has not been served on the counsel for the appellant and learned counsel further contended that an order cannot be passed on an application where the respondent (present applicant) had no opportunity to rebut the allegation made in such intervention application. It has also been further contended that learned Single Judge has noticed that the order of transfer of the appellant to Darbhanga was the subject 3 matter of a separate writ which is still pending before this court and it is also the fact that there could not have been any observation that the appellant wanted to remain at Patna. Learned counsel has further contended that recommendation made by the preliminary inquiry committee to transfer him in public and administrative interest cannot be sustained under law. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has opposed the above submissions. This court felt to call for a report from the Registry of the High Court with regard to serving of the intervention application i.e. Interlocutory Application No. 6782 of 2010 in C.W.J.C. No. 10636 of 2010 on the counsel for the appellant. The report submitted at 2.15 P.M. today, which shows that the intervention application has been served on the A.C. to Standing Counsel on 03.08.2010, but, however, there is no serving of papers in the intervention application on the counsel for the appellant/petitioner. Learned counsel for the 4 appellant has contended that the Interlocutory Application has not been listed in the cause list. Under the above circumstances, we are of the opinion that the order passed by learned Single Judge on the intervention application, which has not been served, against which the appellant has no opportunity to rebut the averments made therein, cannot be sustained. Under the above circumstances, we are of the opinion that the order passed by the competent Authority has to be set aside as the same is passed basing the recommendation of Preliminary inquiry committee. So far as the intervention application is concerned, counsel for the appellant has contended that the intervenor is only Class IV employee and as the appellant has taken such action against him, he filed the present application and he has no locus standi in the matter and also on this occasion, it is to be observed that the intervention application belongs to only Class IV employee, he has no role to play in the administration and in the office of the 5 Headmaster with regard to the present context of the disciplinary action and present circumstances of the matter, as the matter relates to the functioning of the Headmaster, and it is between the Department and the applicant himself. Under above circumstance, we are of the opinion that the intervention applicant has no locus standi. In view of the fact that the competent authority has passed the order acting upon the recommendation in the preliminary inquiry report, such order cannot be sustained. In the result, we are of the opinion that the order of learned single Judge cannot be sustained and the same is set aside and accordingly, this Letters Patent Appeal stands allowed to the above extent. Rajeev/Praveen (T. Meena Kumari, J.) ( Akhilesh Chandra, J.)