IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6232 of 2009 MD.RIJWAN Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajiv Kumar Singh Mr. Alok Kumar Singh For the State : Mr. Shiv Kumar, G.A. 8. ----------- 2. 18.05.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner was appointed as a Block teacher. The Deputy Development Commissioner on 12.1.2008 ordered for his removal. Consequential orders were issued by the Block Development Officer on 21.2.2008. The petitioner questioned the same before the Appellate Authority in Appeal Case No. 13 of 2009. The Appellate Authority in its order dated 5.3.2009 states that it is not clear as to why the petitioner has been terminated. But declined to entertain the appeal by stating that it was not filed within 30 days from the date of the order of the Block Development Officer dated 21.2.2008. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that under the erstwhile rules of 2006, limitation for disposal of grievance by the Deputy Development Commissioner was 30 days. No time limit was prescribed for institution of the grievance. Even in the amendment made in 2008 by which the Deputy Development Commissioner has now been replaced by the Appellate Authority, the requirement under Rule 2 of the notification creating the Authority dated 25.8.2008 is for a decision to be taken by the 2 Appellate Authority in a freshly instituted matter within 30 days. Learned counsel for the State is not in a position to controvert the aforesaid submission from the Rules. The laws of limitation are to be interpreted in a manner to achieve the cause of justice and not to stifle justice. This Court does not consider it necessary at this stage to decide the issue of limitation. Specific statement has been made in paragraph 21 of the writ application that the order of the Deputy Development Commissioner dated 12.1.2008 and of the Block Development Officer dated 21.2.2008 were in violation of the principles of natural justice without hearing the petitioner. If that be the correct position, the issue of limitation shall hardly be relevant. The order passed in violation of the principles of natural justice is like still born child, which never comes in existence and it can be challenged at any point of time. As the order of termination is non-speaking and in violation of the principles of natural justice, it is, accordingly, set aside. The matter is remanded to the Appellate Authority to decided the Appeal No. 13 of 2009 afresh after hearing all concerned by a reasoned and speaking order. The writ application stands disposed. AKS/ (Navin Sinha, J.)