IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12323 of 2005. -- - - - - - JIWACHH LAL PASWAN son of Late Gosain Paswan, Vill + P.O. Balthi-Maeshpur, Via A.G.Bazar, Dist.Katihar …… Petitioner. Versus 1.The State of Bihar. 2.The Director, Department of Animal Husbandry, Bihar. 3.The Regional Director, Animal Husbandry, Purnea. 4.The District Animal Husbandry Officer, Kishanganj, … Respondents. For the petitioner : Mr.Y.V.Giri, Sr. Advocate. Mr. V.R.Bharti, Adv. For the State : Mr. Shankar Kumar, A.C. to A.A.G.XV. 6. 01.07.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. In this writ petition, petitioner has made a prayer for quashing the order vide Memo No., 1004 dated 1st December 1998, contained in Annexure-3 whereby petitioner’s services have been reverted to Class-IV post from Class-III post and the order dated 7th November 2001 passed in pursuant to C.W.J.C.No. 7907 of 2001, Annexure-A to the counter affidavit whereby the representation filed by the petitioner was rejected. In the writ petition, the petitioner has stated that he was appointed as Class-IV employee in the Department of Animal Husbandry by the District Animal Husbandry Officer, Purnea. The Government adopted a policy to fill up the Class-III post and 25% of the post was to be filled up from the competent Class-IV employees. The petitioner possesses the requisite qualification for appointment to Class-III post. In view of the aforesaid policy decision, the petitioner and others were asked to appear before the interview board on 30th July 1992, vide letter no. 527 dated 2nd July 1992 and, accordingly, the petitioner and others were promoted to the post of District Animal Husbandry Officer, 2 which is a Class-III post, vide letter No. 756 dated 28th September 1992. The petitioner and others continued on the said post but without notice, the Regional Director, Animal Husbandry, Purnea Division, Purnea, vide letter No. 1004 darted 1st December 1998 reverted the petitioner and others to Class-IV post. It has been contended in the writ petition that before passing the impugned order, no show cause notice was ever given nor any kind of notice and without offering any kind of opportunity of hearing, they were reverted from Class-III post to Class-IV post which is violative of Artic le 311 of the Constitution of India. It has been stated that the authorities before passing the impugned order ought to have served a notice of show cause and only thereafter they could have passed the order. He has relied upon the judgment passed by this Court in the case of one Bhuneshwar Prasad Verma whose name also appeared at item no.1 of Annexure-2 to the writ petition. Sri Verma was also reverted to Class-IV post who was also promoted along with the petitioner. In that case, this Court has held that it was the duty of the authority concerned to give a notice of show cause before passing the order and admittedly no notice or show cause was given to Sri Bhuneshwar Prasad Verma. In consideration of the fact in issue, the Court quashed the order of reversal and reinstated him to Class-III post. Sri Verma was also allowed the consequential benefit, including arrears of salary. However, liberty was given to the authority to pass any order after notice and hearing the petitioner and after accepting the joining of the aforesaid petitioner on Class-III post. Similarly, one another writ petition being C.W.J.C.No. 3546 of 1999 was filed before this Court by Caus Ahmad and one another in which 3 also similar order has been passed on the ground that the principle of natural justice was not followed and in consequence thereof the order of reversal was quashed. The present case is identical to the case of aforesaid persons and, as such, there cannot be any other order than the order passed consistently by this Court by different Benches. In course of argument, it has been further stated by the writ petitioner that the persons in whose favour the order was passed are still working and are in service. The present writ petitioner had earlier moved this Court in C.W.J.C.No. 7907 of 2001 and this Court vide order dated 2nd July 2001 disposed of the writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to file a representative before the Director and the Director was directed to dispose of the same by a speaking order. The petitioner filed a representation vide Annexurew-6 Series. In the representation, he has brought the facts including the fact that other similarly situated persons whose services were also reverted, orders have been passed in their favour and the petitioner also made it clear that similar treatment should be given to him also. The Director, Animal Husbandry, Bihar in pursuance thereof vide Memo No. 6552 dated 7th November 2001 rejected the prayer on the ground that the person who promoted the petitioner has no authority but it has been admitted that before passing the impugned order, the authority concerned did not give any notice or any show cause and the impugned order has also not considered the case of other persons who were given the relief of reinstatement and back wagers. It has been stated by the petitioner that the persons whose orders have been annexed in the writ petition are still working. At this juncture, this Court has no other option but to quash the 4 order dated 1st December 1998, contained in Annexure-3 to the writ petition and the order dated 7th November 2001, contained in Annexure-A to the counter affidavit. However, the authority will have a liberty to pass any order after giving notice and hearing to the petitioner. The writ petition is allowed with the above observations and directions. Jay/ ( Shivaji Pandey,J.)