IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2018 of 2009 Kumari Seema Singh . Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors . ----------- For the petitioner : M/s Satya Prakash Srivastava and Sanjay Kumar Pandey For the State : Ms. Nilu Agrawal, GA 6 Mr. Krishna Murari Pd. AC to GA 6 For Respondent no.5: Mr. Ajay Kumar Singh, Advocate -------- 4. 05.07.2011 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State as also Shri Ajay Kumar Singh appearing on behalf of Sri Sunil Kumar Singh Advocate for Respondent no. 5. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 7.11.2008 of the Circle Officer, Manpur at Gaya restraining her from discharging duties as the Secretary, Gram Kutchery. It is submitted that the petitioner along with Respondent no. 5 had applied for the post in response to an advertisement. The respondent no. 5 was at serial one and petitioner at serial two. An allegation was made that Respondent no. 5 was not resident of the Gram Panchayat, a condition precedent for the appointment. An enquiry report came to be submitted leading to denial for appointment to Respondent no. 5.The petitioner came to be appointed and started discharge of duties on 27.5.2008. CWJC No. 8504 of 2008 preferred by the Respondent no. 5 was disposed on 16.7.2008 with the observation that before cancellation of residence certificate, Respondent no. 5 was entitled to be heard. The matter was remitted back to the Circle Officer, Manpur at Gaya with a direction to proceed for an adjudicatory decision in accordance with law. In pursuance thereof the impugned order dated 7.11.2008 has been issued. Counsel for the petitioner submits that she does not and cannot have any objection with regard to the direction for hearing of respondent no. 5 with regard to her residence certificate when rest shall follow. But pending such enquiry to unseat the petitioner by the impugned order was not justified. This Court in CWJC No. 8504 of 2008 gave no such direction. Even otherwise to restrain the petitioner from working in pursuance of an appointment amounts to penalizing her without an adjudicatory decision even. If ultimately the Circle Officer finds no reason to interfere with the appointment of the petitioner grave prejudice shall be caused to her. It is acknowledged that the right that shall flow to the petitioner by any order of the Court shall be restrictive and operative only till the fresh order of the Circle Officer, Manpur. Counsel for the State has acknowledged after instruction that in pursuance of the removal of the petitioner no other person is working on the post in question. The impugned order dated 7.11.2008 is set aside only to the extent that it cancels the appointment of the petitioner pending an enquiry. Let the Circle Officer complete the enquiry in question after hearing all concerned within a maximum period of four months from the date of receipt and/or production of a copy of this order before him so that the state of uncertainty between the parties may be brought to an end at the earliest and the Government scheme of Gram Kutchery may not unnecessarily suffer. The writ application stands disposed. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)