IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13221 of 2008 RUBY KUMARI & ORS Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 5 8.4.2009 I.A. No.6112 of 2008 has been filed assailing the order of termination of the services of the petitioners dated 28.9.2007 issued during the pendency of the writ application. Having heard learned Counsels for the parties, this Court is satisfied that the I.A. application deserves to be allowed and the challenge to the order in the I.A application shall form a part of the original writ petition. Heard learned Counsels for the petitioners and the State. Petitioners were appointed and were working as Panchayat Teachers. They came to this Court with a claim for payment of salary since June, 2007 on the assertion that despite discharge of duties they are not being paid. During the pendency of the writ application orders have been passed by the Block Development Officer for terminating their services. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that quite apart from the issue that the order of termination has been issued ex parte without adequate issuance of show cause notice, the more important question is if the - 2 - Block Development Officer, the statutory authority, could have passed the order at the dictate of the District Magistrate and whether the order by the statutory authority passed in this manner is vitiated. Learned Counsel for the State prays for further time to file counter affidavit including the averments made in the I.A. application. Despite grant of an earlier opportunity no such counter affidavit has been filed. To this Court, on the face of the order impugned, the writ application is raising a pure question of law. The law stands settled that an order passed by a statutory authority at the behest or dictate or direction of another, vitiates the order as made on extraneous materials amounting to abdication of jurisdiction. If an authority be needed the same, reference may be made to paragraph 26 of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Bahadursinh Lakhubhai Gohil Vs. Jagdishbhai M. Kamalia and others (2004(2) SCC 65 )as follows:- “26.It is also well settled that if any decision is taken by a statutory authority at the behest or on the suggestion of a person who has no statutory role to play, the same would be ultra vires.” This Court therefore finds it difficult to sustain the impugned order of termination dated 28.9.2007 in its present form. It is accordingly set aside. - 3 - The writ application stands allowed. (Navin Sinha,J.) A.Kumar