IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11671 of 2008 SEEMA KUMARI d/o Sri Kapildeo Choudhary, resident of village- Ayodhyaganj Bazar, P.S. Kursela in the district of Katihar. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Secretary, Human Resources Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Deputy Development Commissioner, Katihar. 3. The Block Development officer, Hassanganj, Katihar. 4. The Block Education Extension Officer, Hassanganj, Katihar. 5. Pramukh, Hassanganj Block, District- Katihar. 6. The Member, Education Committee, Panchayat Samiti, Hassanganj, Katihar. 7. Neha d/o Shri Tarkeshwar Prasad, resident of Mohalla- Rampara,Ward no. 24, PS. Town, District- Katihar. ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Vinay Ranjan. For the State : Mr. Basant Kr.Singh For respondent nos. 5 and 6 : Mr. Manish Kumar. 3 29.3.2011 By this writ application, the petitioner has challenged the order, as passed by Deputy Development Commissioner, Katihar, dated 30.1.2008 (Annexure- 7 ), by which he has held that Neha (respondent no.7) had higher marks and as such she should have been appointed in preference to the petitioner to the post of Block Teacher in respect of Hassanganj Block , District- Katihar. Annexure 8 is the consequential order passed by the Block Development Officer, dated 15.5.2008. Upon this writ petition being filed, by order dated 25.7.2009, this Court restrained respondent no.7 from joining the post, if she has not already joined. Notices were issued to respondent no. 7 and as per office report, they have been validly served .She has chosen not to appear. All other respondents have appeared and a counter affidavit has already been filed on behalf of respondent no.4-Block Education Extension Officer, 2 Hassanganj, Katihar. Heard the parties and with their consent this writ application is being disposed of at this stage itself. It appears that in the year 2007, for the purposes of appointment of Block Teacher in respect of Hassanganj Block, applications were called for and a merit list was prepared. Pursuant to the merit list, counselling was done and thereafter the petitioner was appointed. She joined and thereafter she was sent for training as well. It appears that one Neha (respondent no.7) filed an application before Deputy Development Commissioner, Katihar, after the merit list was prepared, complaining that she was more meritorious but had been wrongly ignored. Deputy Development Commissioner then heard the matter but without noticing the petitioner or without examining the records, which would show that she had not appeared for counselling, held that respondent no.7 was more meritorious and as such should have been appointed in place of the petitioner. The petitioner’s appointment was thus ordered to be cancelled. On behalf of the petitioner , it is submitted that the order of the Deputy Development Commissioner cannot be sustained. It is submitted that, undisputedly , neither the petitioner was made party in those proceedings nor the petitioner was noticed nor the petitioner was heard, as such the order being gross violation of principle of natural justice was void ab initio . It was secondly submitted that Neha was absent 3 at the time of counselling . Not only this, the fact remains that she had earlier been selected as Block Teacher for some other block and was probably engaged as Block Teacher there. She could not have applied for the present post and it is further submitted that it was the reason that she did not appear in counselling but later she challenged her non selection concealing this fact. A counter affidavit has been filed by the Block Education Extension Officer, Hassanganj. In paras 9 and 10 thereof, it has categorically been admitted that respondent no.7 had been selected earlier itself for another block as Block Teacher where she had joined even before the merit list was prepared for appointment in relation to Hssanganj Block. It is not disputed that she had not appeared for counselling. It is further submitted that as per Government’s Circular, the candidate having already been selected, could not have applied for this post. In my view, counter affidavit fully supports the contention , as raised by the petitioner. In spite of service of notice, respondent no.7 has chosen to away from the proceedings probably because by interim order , as noted above, she was restrained from joining the post and she could continue in her old post and has no more interest in joining the post in Hassanganj. Be that as it may, in my view, the order of Deputy Development Commissioner cannot be sustained. It is passed in gross violation of principle of natural justice and as such void 4 ab initio in so far as petitioner Seema Kumari is concerned. Secondly, there was no justification for Deputy Development Commissioner to interfere when respondent no.7 had not appeared for counselling and had been employed as Block Teacher in another Block. Thus, Annexure 7, as aforesaid, is quashed. Consequently Annexure 8 also stands quashed. As order (Annexure 7) is declared to be void ab initio, it would be deemed that the petitioner had been continuing in service without interruption and as such would be entitled to full remuneration for the aforesaid period .The responsibility of payment of full remuneration to the petitioner would be on the Block Education Extension Officer, Hassanganj and the same shall be paid to the petitioner within three months from the date of production of a copy of this order before him. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition is allowed. Singh ( Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)