IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11798 of 2002 RAJ NANDAN PANDIT Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 03 06.03.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner superannuated from Government service on 31.12.2001. When the time came for fixation of his pensionary and retiral benefits, on an objection by the office of the Accountant General, that the petitioner has not passed the departmental Accounts examination, the respondents State authority without issuance of a show-cause notice by an order dated 25.7.2002, cancelled the time bound promotion granted to the petitioner as far back as 19.7.1989. The impugned order states that the time bound promotion was being cancelled on the orders of the Accountant General. The law stands settled that an order by a statutory authority at the behest of another without independent application of mind vitiates the order as based on extraneous grounds and arbitrary making it not sustainable. In 2004 (2) SCC 65 (Bahadursinh Lakhubhai Gohil Versus Jagdishbhai M. Kamalia & Others) it has been held at paragraph-26 as follows:- ‘It is also well settled that if any 2 decision is taken by a statutory authority at the behest or on the suggestion of a person who has no statutory role to play, the same would be ultra vires. (See Commr. Of Police v. Gordhandas Bhanji and Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commr.)’ The impugned order is, therefore, not sustainable on that short ground alone. There is no occasion for this Court, at this stage to consider the other objections with regard to violation of the principles of natural justice or whether the petitioner had passed the departmental examination or not, or whether he was required to pass the departmental examination or not. The impugned order dated 25.7.2002 is set aside. The writ applications stands allowed. P.K. (Navin Sinha, J.)