IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2050 of 2008 BAJDHA BHARTI BJDHA BHARTI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 2/ 04/02/2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State as also for the intervener in I.A. No.3725/09 the appellant before the Commissioner. The controversy is with regard to appointment on the post of Angan Bari Sevika. The petitioner was a candidate belonging to the backward class. The intervener belongs to the scheduled caste. The selection of the petitioner was questioned before the District Magistrate who, by his order dated 17.8.2007, based on an enquiry report, arrived at the finding that the backward class was the dominant caste in the area and, therefore, there was no illegality in the appointment of the petitioner. This was questioned by the intervener before the Commissioner who upset the order of the District Magistrate. The petitioner has specifically asserted in paragraph-18 of the writ application that no notice was issued to her or opportunity given to be heard before the Commissioner. A counter affidavit is stated to have been filed on behalf of the Commissioner, respondent No.2, which is not available on the record. The Court, 2 therefore, requested the learned counsel for the State to make available his copy of the counter affidavit for perusal. The specific assertion of the petitioner in paragraph-18 of the writ application that she was not heard has not been denied in paragraph-5 of the counter affidavit which deals in an omnibus manner with paragraph-4 to 22 of the writ application and states that he had set aside the order after due consideration and perusal of the entire records and that he did not act without application of mind. There is no denial of the specific assertion of the petitioner with regard to violation of the principles of natural justice. Learned counsel for the intervener has objected that the writ petition is fit to be dismissed for failure to implead the intervener as party respondent even though she is vitally to be affected by any order passed in the writ application. The fault which the intervener finds with the petitioner equally applies to the intervener in the proceedings before the Commissioner. The standard by which the intervener professes to act in the present proceedings is the very same standard by which she has to be judged in the proceedings before the Commissioner. Additionally, this Court finds that the 3 Commissioner states in his counter affidavit of having examined the entire records. Yet the impugned order dated 2.1.2008 makes no reference and does not deal with, much less discuss, the order of the District Magistrate arriving at a finding of fact based on materials furnished before the District Magistrate in pursuance of an enquiry with regard to the mapping etc. Whether it be violation of the principles of natural justice or non-consideration of all relevant materials for an appropriate decision, the order of the Commissioner becomes unsustainable in either events. The order dated 2.1.2008 is accordingly set aside. The matter is remanded to the court of the Commissioner to hear the parties afresh and then pass a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law within a maximum period of four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Pending disposal of the matter by the Commissioner status quo between the petitioner and the intervener shall be maintained. The writ application stands allowed. KC/ ( Navin Sinha, J.)