IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10111 of 2008 DILIP KUMAR YADAV Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 2 02.09.2008 Learned Counsel prays for and is permitted to implead Block Development Officer, Baiysee, Purnea as respondent no. 9. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, for the State and fore the interveners who it is stated have filed an application for intervention vide I.A. No. 4929 of 2008. The petitioner was selected as Shiksha Mitra and ran his first term of eleven months successfully which came tobe renewed on 29.6.2006. The controversy started thereafter. The intervener was an applicant in 1999 itself when it is contended that his application was rejected as incomplete. The petitioner has now been terminated/directed to be terminated by the impugned order dated 20.6.2008 on an allegation petition filed by the Intervener. It is the case of the petitioner in paragraph 10 that the enquiry held on the application of the intervener was ex-parte in nature. From the impugned order dated 20.6.2008 and the consequential order of termination dated 26.6.2008 this Court finds it difficult to arrive at a positive conclusion of the petitioner having been heard by respondent no. 9 before the impugned order came to be passed. Learned Counsels for the State and the intervener have no objection if this application is disposed with directions to the respondent no. 9 to decide afresh the issue of eligibility of the petitioner for appointment as Shiksha Mitra after hearing all concerned in accordance with law within a maximum period of eight weeks from the date of receipt and/or production of a copy of this order. The impugned orders are accordingly set aside for that limited purpose only. It shall not result in reinstatement of the petitioner which shall abide by the fresh final decision to be taken by respondent no. 9. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)