IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1732 of 2009 PRASHANT KUMAR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 2. 3.2.2009 Heard Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State. In this writ application the grievance of the petitioner is as against an order of termination of service which decision has been taken by the Collector of Samastipur district on a representation filed by respondent no.9. It is the case of the petitioner and in fact also gets supported from the connected documents that the Collector before passing the impugned order as communicated by the District Superintendent of Education had not afforded any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Whatever decision, therefore, taken against the petitioner for termination of his service was passed on one sided version of respondent no.9. That being so, this Court would find it difficult to sustain the impugned order of termination of service of the 2 petitioner. This, however, may trigger another round of litigation because if the order of termination of service of the petitioner is interfered, there would be an obvious parallel right created in favour of respondent no.9. The situation would be even worse for the petitioner because even if respondent no.9 had succeeded in getting appointment of the petitioner cancelled, she cannot be appointed in view of the Government decision imposing complete law on fresh appointment. That being so, when the only a limited right of the petitioner with regard to her continuation on the post of Siksha Mitra alone is involved it would be all the more necessary for the Collector to afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as also Respondent no. 9 and/or any other affected person. Considering the fact that the Collector had earlier taken such a decision in the impugned order without giving notice and/or opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, this Court would put the 3 impugned order in abeyance till the Collector decides the whole issue afresh after rehearing all the concerned and affected persons including the petitioner. As and when the Collector decides to rehear the matter he would not only issue notice for hearing to the petitioner but also to respondent no.9 Kalpana Devi and respondent 10 Shabana Praveen and a final decision be taken after complying the principles of natural justice. It must be made clear that even when on an earlier occasion the writ application of Kalpana Rani was disposed of by this Court, this Court had never meant that the others who were going to be affected were not to be heard before passing of such order. That being so, this Court would direct the Collector of the district to reconsider the whole matter relating to termination of the services of the petitioner afresh without being prejudiced by his earlier order and pass a reasoned order preferable within a period of three 4 months from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. With the aforementioned observation and direction this application is disposed of. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/