IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9183 of 2010 Punam Kumari D/o Sri Narayan Prasad Singh, wife of Sri Pankaj Kumar Singh ,Resident of Village-Bharouli, P.O.+ P.S.-Sonbarsa. …….Petitioner. Versus 1.The State Of Bihar through Principal Secretary,Human Resources Development Department Bihar, New Secretariat Patna. 2.District Magistrate, Saharsa. 3.Sub-divisional Magistrate Simribakhtiyar Pur, District-Saharsa. 4.District Superintendent of Education, Saharsa. 5.Block Development Officer-cum-Appellate Authority, Panchayat Teacher Niyojan, Simribakhtiyar Pur, District-Saharsa. 6.Block Education Extension Officer, Simribakhtiyar Pur, Saharsa. 7. Mukhiya Gram Panchayat Raj Mohan pur, Block & P.S.- Simribakhtiyar Pur, District-Saharsa. 8. Panchayat Sachiv, Secretary Panchayat Niyojan, Gram Panchayat Raj Mohan Pur, Block & P.S.- Simribakhtiyar Pur, District – Saharsa. …. Respondents. ---------------------------------- 3 14.12.2011 The impugned order is of Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department Bihar, which is contained in Memo No.395 dated 6.4.2010 ( Annexure-1). This order was passed by Principal Secretary in terms of the order of this Court dated 9.4.2009 passed in C.W.J.C. No.11581 of 2008. From perusal of the order of this Court, made available by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it appears that this Court found that in the counter affidavit it had been stated that after cancellation of appointment of four candidates the petitioner was entitled to be appointed for which a permission of department was required. In view of such stand in the counter affidavit this Court directed the Principal Secretary to pass appropriate orders. From the impugned order of the Principal Secretary it appears that besides the case of the four persons whose appointments were cancelled, the case of this petitioner was also examined and it was held that her appointment was also fit to be cancelled. 2 However, it is apparent from the order of this Court as well as from the order of the Principal Secretary that this petitioner was not among the four persons whose appointments were cancelled. It appears that before the Principal Secretary the Block Development Officer had submitted a report by showing some candidate with higher marks as left out, due to which this petitioner was not found entitled to be appointed. On that report the Principal Secretary had issued directions for removal of the petitioner also. The case of this petitioner was not covered by the order of this Court. Hence, a new case was before the Principal Secretary which was considered by him on the report of the B.D.O.. Since Principal Secretary had decided to accept the said report resulting into order of termination of the service of the petitioner it was obligatory on his part to issue notice to the petitioner for her appearance before him for that part of the order, which he did not do. Hence, so far as the petitioner is concerned, there was, therefore, complete violation of principle of natural justice committed by the Principal Secretary. In the circumstance, the order impugned of the Principal Secretary so far as it relates to the petitioner, is, therefore, quashed and the writ application is allowed. AnilKrSinha (J. N. Singh,J.) 00