IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4784 of 2010 1. Shyam Kishore Sinha S/O Sri Chetan Garaine R/O Mohalla Chhota Bariyarpur , P.O + P.S - Chhatauni , Motihari District - East Champaran 2. Mahesh Prasad Srivastava S/O Sri Ramakant Prasad R/O Mohalla - Mathiadih , P.O + P.S - Chhatauni, Motihari , District - Eash Champaran Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Commissioner R.W.D. , 5th Floor, Bishwaraiya Bhawan , Bailey Road , Patna 3. The Engineer In Chief, R.W.D. , 5th Floor, Bishwaraiya Bhawan , Bailey Road , Patna 4. The Chief Engineer Iii R.W.D. Hajipur Presently Working 6th Floor, Bishwashraiya Bhawan Road , Patna 5. The Superintending Engineer R.W.D. Works Circle, Bettiah West Champaran 6. The Executive Engineer R.W.D. Motihari/ Dhaka East Champaran 3/ 08/09/2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 19.2.2010 issued by the Joint Secretary, Rural Works Department canceling their order for absorption dated 21.1.2009 on the ground that it was not in accordance with law. Learned counsel for the petitioner specifically invites the attention of the Court to paragraph-18 of the writ application that before depriving them of the benefit of absorption no show cause notice was issued to the petitioner. It is further submitted that in pursuance thereof recovery has also been ordered. 2 Learned counsel for the State submits that the Joint Secretary, Rural Works Department has not been made a party respondent. The Court finds that the petitioners are working Rural Works Department Circle at Bettiah and Motihari respondents 5 and 6 both of which are under the Joint Secretary, the author of the impugned order. The technical objection sought to be taken on behalf of the respondents that a necessary party had not been impleaded, does not convince the Court as respondent Nos. 5 and 6 could easily have taken instructions from the Joint Secretary and filed a counter affidavit accordingly. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent No.5. It does not deny the assertion of the petitioner that the impugned order is in violation of the principles of natural justice. Learned counsel for the State sought to persuade the Court to go into the merits of the claim urging that the absorption itself was not in accordance with law. This Court exercising powers of judicial review under Article-226 is not concerned so much with the merits of the decision as it is with the manner in which the decision has been made. Any order adverse to a person having civil consequences cannot be passed in 3 violation of the principles of natural justice. In a Government governed Rule of Law, no power in the respondent is absolute. All power is regulated by law. An order passed behind the back of a person is a nullity in the law. It is like a still born child which never came into existence. The Court merely performs the final obsequies of such an order. The Court also finds the order to be arbitrary on another ground when it states that the absorption was not regular, but does not disclose the irregularity. It was the duty of the respondents to pass a reasoned and speaking order. Had they done so, this Court in exercise of judicial review may or may not have interfered. Conversely, if the petitioner was made aware of the reasons, he may have applied his own mind and then taken a reasoned decision whether it was in his interest to pursue it or not. The entire litigation stands generated by the order dated 19.2.2010. The order is accordingly set aside as arbitrary and non-speaking in nature. The matter is remanded to the Joint Secretary of the Rural Works Department to issue a show cause notice to the petitioners in accordance with law and then consider their stand appropriately and dispose it off by a reasoned and speaking order within a 4 maximum period of three months discussing all aspects of the matter and disclosing full application of mind to all issues so that if the need arises, judicial review is facilitated. The writ application is disposed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)