IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5409 of 2009 PUNYANAND YADAV & ORS Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 2. 28.04.2009 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Counsel for the State. From the order impugned dated 20.2.2009 of the Appellate Authority at Annexure 11 it is apparent that the claim of the private respondent is pending consideration before the Appellate Authority and no final decision has been taken holding that the appointment of the petitioners was contrary to law. The apprehension of the Counsel for the petitioner that by the impugned order even while the matter was pending a final decision, the order of the RDDE dated 31.12.2008 in favour of the petitioners has been cancelled and that nothing further remained to be decided now by the Appellate Authority is misconceived. From the tenor of the order of the Appellate Authority dated 20.2.2009 it is apparent that the issues still remained to be decided as to whether the appointment of the petitioners or the private respondent was correct. The mere use of the words ‘cancelled’ with regard to the order dated 31.12.2008 of the RDDE is not conclusive. This Court explains and clarifies that the use of the word ‘cancelled’ is a misnomer. When a matter is pending adjudication there can only be ‘stay of the operation of the impugned order’ pending final disposal of the matter. The order dated 20.2.2009 is therefore clarified to that extent in context of the order of the RDDE dated 31.12.2008 as an order of ‘stay’ only. The Appellate Authority is required to dispose of the application of the private respondent in accordance with the time limit framed under Rule 2 of the notification creating the Authority after hearing all concerned. In view of the clarification made by this Court it is submitted that the petitioners propose to file an application for vacating the stay order. If such an application is filed the Appellate Authority is under obligation to decide the same by a reasoned and speaking order after hearing all concerned. With the aforesaid clarification the writ application stands disposed off. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)