IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16312 of 2009 1. RAJESHWAR RAI S/O SHRI VISHWANATH RAI AT+P.O. GOPALPUR, DISTT-GOPALGANJ Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRAE GOPALGANJ 3. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER KUCHAIKOT, P.O.KUCHAIKOT, P.S.KUCHAIKOT, DISTT- GOPALGANJ 4. G.P.S. KUCHAIKOT P.O.+P.S.KUCHAIKIT, DISTT- GOPALGANJ 5. SARPANCH, GRAM KUCHAIKOT BRAHARA P.O. GOPALPUR, P.S. GOPALPUR, DISTT- GOPALGANJ ----------- 2/ 07/01/2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner claims to have been considered and appointed on the post of Secretary, Gram Kutchahri on 5.11.2007/7.11.2007. Another applicant came to this Court with the grievance of non- consideration of her candidature in CWJC No. 16490 of 2007 which has been disposed with directions to examine her representation only. In pursuance thereto the impugned order dated 29.10.2009 has been passed setting aside the appointment of the petitioner. It is firstly urged that the impugned order is in violation of the principles of natural justice as specifically pleaded in paragraph 14 & 15 and no show cause notice was issued to the petitioner and neither was he subjected to any proceeding etc. The next ground urged from the impugned order is that the controversy by the private applicant arises in context of her claim to be considered ‘Madhyama’ as equivalent to 2 ‘Matriculation’ for appointment with effect from 31.1.2008 under a pending decision by the Respondents. Relying upon an order of this Court in CWJC No. 13836 of 2009, it is submitted that this Court has held that a person appointed before 5.1.2009, when the legislative amendment with retrospective effect from 31.1.2008 came to be made, falls in the category of a completed transaction and the appointment of such person cannot be terminated. The impugned order does not direct appointment of the private respondent but after setting aside the appointment of the petitioner directs fresh process of selection. This Court, therefore, considers it proper to set aside the order dated 29.10.2009. The matter is remanded to the authorities to re-decide the issue in light of the judgment of this Court in CWJC No. 13836 of 2009. If the authorities propose to affirm the impugned order, they are required to pass a reasoned and speaking order dealing with the orders of this Court in CWJC No. 13836 of 2009, setting out the grounds for their difference of opinion that the petitioner was not covered by the said order and was not entitled to similar 3 relief. Let the same be done after hearing all concerned within a maximum period of three months from the date of receipt and/or production of a copy of this order. The petitioner shall stand reinstated as a consequence of the present order but subject to final order that may be passed by the authorities. AKS/ ( Navin Sinha, J.)