IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.1391 of 2010 1. Chitranjan Kumar Singh, son of Tarkeshwar Singh, resident of village- Mohanpur, P.O.- Balwa Hat, P.S.- Simri Bakhtiyarpur, District- Saharsa. 2. Kundan Kumar, son of Satyanand Ray, resident of village- Mohanpur, P.O.- Balwa Hat, P.S.- Simri Bakhtiyarpur, District- Saharsa. 3. Md. Kausar Ali Rahmani, son of Md. Alauddin, resident of village- Chakmakka, P.O.- Siynabad, P.S.- Simri Bakhtiarpur, District.- Saharsa. 4. Md. Abu Kamar, son of Md. Sultan Ahmad, resident of village- Mohanpur, Tola Usrahi, P.O. Balwa Hat, P.S.- Simri Bakhtiyarpur, District- Saharsa. ……Petitioner- Appellants. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The District Collector, Saharsa. 3. The Subdivisional Officer, Simri Bakhtiyarpur, Saharsa. 4. The Block Development Officer, Block- Simri Bakhtiyarpur, District- Saharsa. 5. The Block Education Extension Officer, Block- Simari Bakhtiyarpur, District- Saharsa. …. Respondents- Respondents. ----------- 02- 25.8.2011 Heard Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr. Yogendra Prasad Sinha, learned Additional Advocate General No.XV for the respondents. 2. The present letters patent appeal has been filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent of the High Court of Judicature at Patna against the order dated 6.7.2010 passed in C.W.J.C. No.5211 of 2010 (Chitranjan Kumar Singh & others vs. The State of Bihar and others). The writ petition 2 was filed against the order passed by the Block Development Officer-cum-Appellate Authority in terms of rule 18 of the Bihar Panchayat Primary Teachers (Appointment and Service Condition) Rules, 2006, as well as against the order passed by the Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Government of Bihar dated 31.3.2010 by which selection of the writ petitioners was held to be bad and a direction was issued to appoint other persons who, as per the order, were much higher to the writ petitioners in the merit list. The main contention of the writ petitioners was that they had not been heard prior to passing of the order by the appellate authority and secondly that since there was no fraud or misrepresentation on their part, their appointments could not have been casually set aside and that too behind their back. 3. The learned Single Judge after hearing the parties by the order under appeal was not inclined to interfere with the order impugned but only modified the same to the extent that there would be a fresh counselling and thereafter the appointments would be made. 4. Being aggrieved by the order the present letters patent appeal has been filed by the writ petitioners. Learned 3 counsel appearing for the appellants reiterated the grounds taken before the learned Single Judge and has submitted that the same was not properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge and thus needs interference by this Court. 5. After hearing the counsel for the parties we are in agreement with the order passed by the learned Single Judge and also approve of the reasons mentioned therein. The learned Single Judge has rightly dealt with the issue of no notice being served to the writ petitioners, by holding that since the matter was heard on merit by the learned Single Judge, no prejudice was caused to the writ petitioners that they were not given an opportunity of hearing by the authority. It further held that from the admitted facts, the process which was sought to be justified for appointment did not appear to be reasonable and acceptable in the normal course of working and thus the order passed by the appellate authority as well as the Principal Secretary were justified on facts to that extent. However, by way of indulgence the order under challenge was modified with a direction for fresh counselling, thereby giving an opportunity to the writ petitioners to take their chance with regard to fresh appointments sought to be made in future. Learned counsel 4 for the appellants submits that among the relief prayed for in the writ petition they had also sought for payment not made to them for the period they had worked. The learned Single Judge has observed that the termination order will be deemed to come into effect from 14.4.2008. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants have asked for payment prior to 14.4.2008 which covered the period they had actually worked. If that be so, the concerned respondent shall look into the same and if it is found that the appellants had worked prior to 14.4.2008 then the payment for the said period should be made to them expeditiously and in any case within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 6. In view of the aforesaid we are in agreement with the order passed by the learned Single Judge which does not call for any interference. Accordingly, this Letters Patent Appeal stands dismissed. (S K Katriar, J.) (Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.) S.K.Pathak/