IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4724 of 2009 LALIT KUMAR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 2/ 15/04/2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner was selected as a Panchayat Teacher under the backward category on 31.1.2007. He was required to report at the Panchayat office by 10.2.2007. An appointment letter was then issued on 25.2.2007. He was posted in the Government Primary School, Jaukipatti. He joined the post on 4.3.2007. It is submitted that those who did not report at the Panchayat office till 10.2.2007, their candidature was cancelled and the post declared vacant. Nearly five months later, respondent No.10 filed an application before the Block Development Officer with a grievance that persons with lesser marks had been appointed. No details of such persons and a comparative statement of marks was even mentioned in the application, at annexure-6. The whole exercise of selection and appointment was then sought to be re-examined ex parte and without notice to the petitioner his appointment as also that of certain other specified persons were termed 2 to be wrong. Their appointments have then been cancelled by order dated 10.5.2008. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon a decision of this Court in C.W.J.C. No.11933/08 disposed on 5.3.2009 holding that a period of 30 days as reasonable for purposes of invocation of Rule-18 of the Bihar Primary Teachers (Appointment and Service Conditions) Rules,2006 (hereinafter referred to as 2006 Rules for purposes of brevity) on the issue of legality of appointment in absence of any time prescribed therein. He submits that the present application of the private respondent was much belated than that. Learned counsel for the State points out that the impugned order having been passed on an application by respondent No.10, notice is required to be issued by this Court before any orders can be passed. The initial order being in violation of the principles of natural justice, as alleged, is clearly not sustainable. There can be no quarrel with the proposition advanced by the learned counsel for the State, but the manner in which the administrative authorities are proceeding, orders are repeatedly passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, the orders contain no reasons and the rate at which the burden is being cast on 3 the High Court to examine such orders, this Court considers it prudent to pass appropriate orders at this stage adequately protecting the interests of private respondent No.10. Otherwise, the operation of the impugned order is required to be stayed and notice issued to the private respondents. The matter shall then, in its usual course, take years for further hearing considering the insurmountable burden of cases before this Court. Since this Court is presently burdened with writ petitions of the year-2001, no useful purpose would be served in that event either for the petitioner or the private respondent. It is only under the present system of the listing that fresh cases are being listed at the top of the list. The State Government has now framed an appellate authority after making amendments on 25.8.2008 to the 2006 Rules. Since this Court has held that the impugned order is in violation of the principles of natural justice, and the order has been set aside, the present matter now classifies as one pending before the Block Development Officer under Rule-2 of the amended Rules. By a fiction of law the present matter stands transferred to the appellate authority under Rule-2 of the 2008 amendment to be disposed in accordance with law within the time prescribed in the amended statute. 4 If the petitioner prefers an application before the appellate authority within four weeks, the appellate authority shall be required to fix a date for hearing after service of notice on the private respondent No.10 and then pass fresh appropriate orders in accordance with law. If the petitioner does not prefer such an application before the appellate authority within a period of four weeks, the impugned order dated 10.5.2008 shall require no interference. This Court considers the same necessary so as not to enable the petitioner to obtain undue benefit by reason of the impugned order having been set aside and remanded in absence of the private respondent. The writ application stands disposed. KC (Navin Sinha, J.)