IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.18704 of 2008 MD.ABDUL RAHMAN & ORS . Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS . ----------- For the Petitioners:- Mr. Birmani Kumar, Adv. For the State:- Mr. Satish Kr. Sinha, A.C. to A.A.G.-4 ------------- 5. 25.11.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. Though the order impugned dated 3.6.2005, for reversion has been passed by the Bihar School Examination Board, none is present on its behalf even though the matter was adjourned on the previous occasion at their request. The Court therefore requested the learned State counsel to assist the Court to examine if the writ petition could be disposed of at this stage, as counter affidavit has already been filed on behalf of the respondent Board. The Court with the assistance of the counsel for the State has gone through the counter affidavit on behalf of the respondent Board. The petitioners were appointed in Grade-IV on 1.6.1985. They were promoted as Routine Clerk on 1.4.1988, when they were also granted Senior Selection Grade whereafter on 6.10.2001 they were promoted as Section Officer. By the impugned order they have been reverted to the status of Grade-IV. 2 The petitioners specifically assert in Paragrpah-14 that before ordering reversion after such long years, no show cause notice was issued to the petitioners with an opportunity to defend their promotions and save themselves from the reversion order. The counter affidavit of the respondent Board is completely silent on the issue whether show cause notice was issued to the petitioners before reversion with an opportunity to submit their defence and after consideration of which it may have been passed. On the face of the order dated 3.6.2005, it prima facie appears that it is ex parte and unilateral in nature. No order to the prejudice of a person, visiting him with civil consequences can be passed behind his back without an opportunity to defend the benefit granted, especially after long years. At this stage, the Court is not concerned with the final decision but with the decision making process. If there is infirmity in the decision making process, the order is not sustainable. The order of reversion dated 3.6.2005 is set aside. The respondent Board, if so advised it may proceed to issue fresh show cause notice to the petitioners with 3 an opportunity to reply the same and thereafter pass final, reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law considering all aspect of the matter. The writ application stands allowed. P. Kumar (Navin Sinha, J.)