IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5735 of 2009 SAVITA KUMARI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 2. 05.05.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 31.3.2009 passed by the Appellate Authority, Jamui, setting aside the appointment of the petitioner on the post of Panchayat teacher and directing fresh consideration in accordance with law including that of Respondent no. 9. A complaint before the Appellate Authority was preferred by Respondent no. 9. Specific statement has been made in paragraph 13 of the writ application that the order of the Appellate Authority was ex parte without notice or opportunity to show cause to the petitioner. Even otherwise, this Court is satisfied that the impugned order does not notice the defence of the petitioner at all. Assuming for the sake of argument that notice was issued to her, there is no finding that she refused to appear, despite valid service of notice. This Court is satisfied that to issue notice to Respondent no. 9 at this stage shall require stay of operation of the order dated 31.3.2009 of the Appellate Authority in Case No. 2 of 2009. This Court is today hearing writ applications of the year 2001-2002. This writ petition shall then come up for hearing years later, which shall neither be beneficial to the State or to the private 2 Respondent. This Court, therefore, considers it proper to set aside the order dated 31.3.2009 on the short ground of non-compliance of the principles of natural justice. But it shall not result in flow of any immediate benefit to the petitioner. It is clarified that the order has been set aside only for the purpose of remand to the Appellate Authority to pass a fresh order after hearing the petitioner and Respondent no. 9, as also the official Respondent. If the petitioner files an application before the Appellate Authority within three weeks along with a copy of this order, the Appellate Authority shall proceed to hear the matter afresh. If no such application is filed by the petitioner within three weeks, the impugned order dated 31.3.2009 shall require no interference and the writ petition shall be deemed to be dismissed. In the event that the petitioner files an application within three weeks, this Court considers it necessary to clarify that no regular appointment shall be made on the vacancy in question. This is considered necessary to prevent creation of any third party right in the mean time and to avoid further complications in the event that the petitioner finally succeeds. The writ application is allowed only to the extent and in the manner indicated hereinabove. AKS/ (Navin Sinha, J.)