IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10839 of 2007 Awadhesh Kumar, Son of Shri Rameshwar Paswan, resident of Vill.-Narma Tola, Benipur, P.S.-Hulasganj, District-Jehanabad. –Petitioner. VERSUS 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Jehanabad. 3. District Superintendent of Education, Jehanabad. 4. Block Development Officer, Ghoshi Block, District-Jehanabad. 5. Mukhiya, Lakhawar Panchayat, District-Jehanabad. 6. Dharmendra Kumar Ravidas, Son of Chhetu Ravidas, R/o-Vill.-Neemchak (Hazichak), P.S.-Belaganj, District-Gaya. –Respondents. ----------- 05 06.04.2011 By this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the legality of Anneuxre-7, being Memo No.27 dated 30.06.2007, issued by the Block Development Officer, Ghoshi, Jehanabad whereby petitioner’s appointment to the post of Panchayat Teacher has been cancelled and it has been directed that the private-respondent no.6, namely, Dharmendra Kumar Ravidas be appointed in his place. Petitioner’s solitary challenge is based on the ground that the impugned order, though a quasi judicial order, is completely a non-speaking order and gives no reason in support thereof and as such is void-ab-initio. Notice had been issued to respondent no.6, who has appeared. State and respondent no.6 have filed their counter affidavit. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not filed rejoinder to the counter affidavits. In the counter affidavit, as filed by the respondent no.6, he has specifically stated that Annexure-7, which is challenged by the petitioner, is only a communication of the order as passed in the proceedings. The order is passed in the proceedings have been appended to the counter affidavit. On behalf of the State counter affidavit has been filed - 2 - reiterating the same. As pleading are complete, with consent of parties, the writ petition has been heard for final disposal at this stage itself. On perusal of impugned Annexure-7, it is apparent that the said annexure is nothing but a communication of the order passed upon adjudication, it is not the order. It is well established that communication need not contain the reasons but contains only the conclusion of the order appended as Annexure-B to the counter affidavit of the private-respondent. That is a complete order sheet of Case No.3/2007 before the Block Development Officer who was competent authority to decide this matter. A reference to the said order sheet would show that apart from private-respondent case being considered the petitioner’s statement was also fully recorded and after recording statements of various persons in the matter finding in relation to private-respondent no.6 was recorded and the proceedings closed. In my view, there is sufficient compliance of principles of natural justice and the order records sufficient reasons in support of the decision. In that view of the matter, I find no merit in this application. It is, accordingly, dismissed. Trivedi/ (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)