IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No 9006 of 2010 1. MISS. SINDHU KUMARI, D/O LATE GOPAL PRASAD, VILLAGE + P.O. DHOLBAZA, P.S. FARBISGANJ,DISTRICT-ARARIA. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE,ARARIA. 3. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE,PURNEA. 4. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION,ARARIA. 5. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION,PURNEA. 6. THE DISTRICT EDUCATION ESTABLISHMENT COMMITTEE, ARARIA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY,NAMELY THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION,ARARIA. *** For the petitioner : Mr Rajendra Pd Singh, Sr Advocate With M/s Rajeev Kr Singh, Onkar Kumar & Naval Kishor Singh, Adv For the S t a t e : Mr S C I *** 2 16.07.2010 The petitioner alleges that she had been appointed as an Assistant Teacher on 24th May, 1972 on Matric trained scale having the necessary educational qualification and Teachers’ Training. She then did her Intermediate and, accordingly with effect from 01.03.1974, she was granted I A trained scale. Having then did her Graduation, with effect from 01.06.1988, she was granted B A trained scale. The last was duly considered in the District Establishment Committee meeting dated 12.04.1988 and was, accordingly, granted as would be apparent from Annexure-7. By Office Order dated 20.12.1990, which is a cyclostyled order, her promotion so granted was cancelled against which petitioner preferred a writ petition before this Court being CWJC No 1082 of 1991 which was allowed by order dated 23.05.1991 giving liberty to the respondent to issue proper show cause and after consideration thereof, 2 pass necessary orders. The matter then kept lingering and in the meantime, the petitioner was granted time bound promotion in Graduate trained scale by order dated 05.06.2002. On 09th February 2010, a show cause notice was issued by the District Superintendent of Education, Araria (Annexure-15) requiring petitioner to show cause as to why the promotion granted to her be not cancelled on the four specific allegations made therein. Petitioner filed her cause on 06.03.2010 clearly stating that on systematic academic achievements of petitioner, she was duly considered by the Establishment Committee and granted promotions. They were neither wrong nor illegal. Petitioner has now been visited with the order of the District Superintendent of Education, Araria as communicated under Memo No 555 dated 30.04.2010 whereby it has been held that Graduate trained scale, as given to the petitioner amongst others named in the order, has been wrongly granted and, as such, is cancelled. It is further directed by the impugned order that all persons should submit their service book for necessary corrections and refixation of their scale and quantification of excess payment received by them for the purposes of recovery. This is the order that is impugned. Having heard the parties, in my view, there is no point in keeping the writ petition pending. It is well settled that an order, which is adverse to the interest of a person, must be passed observing due principles of natural justice. Apart from the facet of hearing the parties, who is likely to be adversely affected, one of the facets of principles of natural justice is that the quasi judicial order must be a speaking order. In the present case, no 3 doubt notice was issued to the petitioner as also to several others, they filed their replies but when we come to the order impugned, it lacks in material particulars. All it says that pursuant to the direction of the District Magistrate and the District Superintendent of Education, Purnea, proceedings were initiated, show cause was issued and upon deliberation, it was found that the show cause was unsatisfactory and, accordingly, the promotions were cancelled. What was the particular illegality or the wrong committed has not been pointed. What are the facts in issue have not been noticed. It is well settled that a speaking order is an order which gives out the reasons in support of the order impugned. Reasons are the link between the facts found and the decision arrived. In the present case, neither the fact found nor the reasons to come to the conclusion that the promotion so granted was wrong have at all been discussed much less noted. Thus, the order impugned cannot be sustained being a non- speaking order by a quasi judicial authority. It has no doubt serious repercussions. Thus, I have no option but to set aside the impugned order, as above, as contained in Annexure-1 and direct the respondent-District Superintendent of Education to reconsider the matter and, if they are so advised, would pass fresh orders upon hearing the petitioner afresh in the matter giving cogent reasons in support thereof, as indicated above. The writ petition is, thus, disposed of. M.E.H./ (Navaniti Prasad Singh)