IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16193 of 2009 1. KEDAR PRASAD SINGH S/O LATE BAM BAHADUR PRASAD SINGH VILL- BHOWA PRAWAL, P.S. RUPOULI, DISTT. PURNIA AT PRESENT RESIDING AT DHAMDAHA, P.S. DHAMDAHA, DISTT. PURNEA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE PURNEA 3. THE SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER DHAMDAHA, DISTT. PURNEA 4. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER DHAMDAHA, PURNEA 5. LOKESH CHANDRA THAKUR S/O BADRI NATH THAKUR R/O DHAMDAHA MIDDLE, DISTT. PURNEA 6. SANTOSH KUMAR S/O RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD MOH- MADHUBANI AMLA TOLA, P.S. MADHUBANI, DISTT. PURNEA 7. NIWAS KUMAR S/O NARAYAN MODI VILL- DUMRI, P.S. TIKAPATTI, DISTT. PURNEA 8. JAGARNATH SINGH S/O LATE UTTAM NARAYAN SINGH VILL- KATHBAZRA, P.S. DHAMDAHA, DISTT. PURNEA, SARPANCH OF GRAM KUCHAHRI DHAMDAHA EAST ----------- 2. 06.01.2010 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State. The grievance is with regard to cancellation of the appointment of the petitioner on the post of Nyai Mitra in pursuance of an application made by the private respondent after the petitioner had joined in pursuance of his selection and started discharging duties. Learned Counsel for the State opposing the application submits that the petitioner appears to have been appointed ignoring persons above him in the merit panel. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that those above him did not appear for counseling. This Court at this stage is not concerned with the merits of the decision but with the decision making process. From the impugned order of cancellation dated 7.12.2007 it appears that notices were issued only to the Sarpanch who made the appointment and not to the petitioner. Even the appeal preferred against the same is by the Sarpanch. The petitioner has been condemned unheard behind his back. It is his specific case in the writ application that no notice was issued to him nor he was heard at any stage. The impugned orders only set aside his selection. No orders for appointment of another appears to have been passed. In view of the impugned orders having been passed without notice to and after hearing the petitioner they are not sustainable in their present form. The impugned orders dated 31.1.2008 and 24.6.2009 are accordingly set aside and the matter is remanded to the SDO Dhamdaha to re-hear Case No. 10 of 2007 and grant proper opportunity to all, the complainant, the petitioner, the Sarpanch and then pass fresh reasoned speaking order within a maximum period of two months from the date of receipt and/or production of a copy of this order. The writ application stands allowed. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)