IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13667 of 2009 MATHURA RAM Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 2/ 29/10/2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner who holds the post of Regional Deputy Director of Education, Purnia, is aggrieved by the order of his suspension dated 7.10.2009. It is contended that certain recommendations had been made for appointment of the heirs of a deceased employee on a Class-3 post. The recommendations were pending consideration when it appears that the aggrieved approached the Chief Minister of the State in the Janta Darbar in pursuance of which the District Magistrate, Purnia issued an order dated 2.3.2009. It directed that the petitioner was not taking appropriate steps to act on the recommendations for appointment and was violating the same and, therefore, was responsible for non-action. The petitioner then made the appointments. The impugned order has then followed that by making the appointments he has violated certain directions of the Department. The short submission is that when the petitioner does not make the appointments in view of the earlier directives, he is 2 pulled up by the District Magistrate in the Janta Darbar for not making the appointments. When he complies with the directions of the District Magistrate he is suspended on the ground that he violated the earlier directions. This Court has perused the order dated 2.3.2009 of the District Magistrate. In the peculiar facts of the case no useful purpose is going to be served by keeping the matter pending. Since it has been contended that the suspension is based on contrary directions being issued by the State Government authorities themselves, this Court in the peculiar facts of the case, considers it proper to direct that the Principal Secretary, Department of Human Resources shall re-examine the order of suspension more particularly in light of the letter of the District Magistrate dated 2.3.2009. If the Principal Secretary is satisfied that the suspension requires no interference, it shall be required to pass a reasoned and speaking order dealing adequately with the directions given to the petitioner in the letter dated 2.3.2009 and in pursuance of which alone the petitioner claims to have acted. Let such fresh decision on the suspension be taken by the Principal Secretary within a maximum 3 period of two weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The writ application stands disposed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)