CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.5861 OF 1992 In the matter of an application under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. ----- SATYENDRA PRASAD, son of Rameshwar Prasad, resident of village – Sinawa, P.S. Parbalpur (Ekangarsarai), District – Nalanda -------------------------- Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. District Panchayat Officer, Nalanda at Biharsharif. ------------------------ Respondents For the petitioner: M/S. Rajendra Prasad, Sr. advocate, Pramod Kumar, Ritesh Kumar and Ram Naresh Pd. For the respondents : Mr. Anil Jha, G.A. 2 and Mr. Arun Kumar, J c to G A – 2. P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI ******* A K Tripathi, J. Petitioner came to be appointed on the post of Dalpati by a decision taken by the Gram Panchayat of Alawan-Sinawan in the district of Nalanda. He was one of the persons out of many candidates who was otherwise found eligible and fit for the post. But after the decision of the Gram Panchayat dated 28.5.1990, based on certain complaints made at various levels, vide order dated 21.11.1990 contained in Memo No. 588 his selection was set aside/turned down. Since the order in question did not indicate any reason for such a decision the petitioner decided to file the present writ application and challenged the same. The writ application was taken up for admission on 1.10.1992. The order dated 21.11.1990 was stayed until further - 2 - orders. By virtue of such order petitioner has continued on the post and on higher post due to passage of time. 2. It is submitted by the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that there was no breach of any of the rules or statutory provisions with regard to the selection of the petitioner on the post. No doubt it was subject to approval by the District Panchayat Officer but then nothing is indicated in the order as to why selection has been put at bay by cancellation and re-selection. On the face of it is a case where rule of natural justice has been violated since the petitioner was not given either any reason or opportunity before passing of an order which had civil consequences for him. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent State and stand has been taken that there is nothing wrong with the impugned order because the selection and appointment was subject to approval. If the approval did not come from the competent authority then the claim of the petitioner had to rest on such a decision. 4. This Court has difficulty in accepting that position because any order or decision made within the public domain must not only be reasonable or fair but also indicate as to the reason why such a conclusion or order came to be passed. Merely because certain allegations were received by some high-ups that may not be enough to cancel the selection more so when it was never communicated to the petitioner as to what the allegations were, based on which such a drastic decision had to be taken. - 3 - 5. In the absence of any cogent explanation even in the writ application as to the material which forced the hands of the respondents to pass the impugned order, this Court has difficulty in sustaining it. 6. The writ application is allowed and order dated 21.11.1990 contained in annexure – 4 is quashed. (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J) Patna High Court: The 27th November, 2008. (NAFR) R K Pathak.