IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5559 of 2008 SEVIKA KUMARI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 2/ 13/05/2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner proposes to move the Appellate Authority against the order of his termination from the post of a Panchayat Teacher. Learned counsel for the State submits that the order is by the Block Development Officer, the erstwhile statutory authority under Rule-18. The matter is, therefore, not amenable to the Appellate Authority. The petitioner has stated specifically in his pleadings of the writ application that the impugned order was passed without issuance of a show cause and opportunity to the petitioner to defend his appointment. Even otherwise, from the recitals in the impugned order there is no finding that despite service of notice the petitioner refused to participate or adequate consideration of the defence of the petitioner. The absence of both these grounds lends credence to the submission of the petitioner that the order is in violation of principles of natural justice. The petitioner 2 has been condemned unheard. The law stands well settled that an order in violation of the principles of natural justice akin to a still born child. It never comes into existence as held in AIR 1974 S.C. 1471. In that view of the matter, the impugned order remains amenable for challenge before the Appellate authority to be decided after hearing all concerned. The writ application stands disposed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)