IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.18665 of 2009 1. JUGNU ALAM S/O MD. JABBAR HUSSAIN R/O VILL- PIPARA, P.S. KUTUMBA AT DISTT. AURANGABAD (BIHAR)- Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPTT. OF PANCHAYAT RAJ, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE AURANGABAD 4. THE DISTRICT PANCHAYAT RAJ OFFICER AURANGABAD 5. THE SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER AURANGABAD 6. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER KUTUMBA AT DISTT. AURANGABAD 7. THE SARPANCH GRAM KACHARI, PIPARABAGAHI, BLOCK- KUTUMBA, DISTT. AURANGABAD 8. KAMTA PRASAD S/O LATE RAM KESHWAR MAHTO R/O VILL- ROSIYARPUR, P.S. KUTUMBA, DISTT. AURANGABAD – Respondents. ----------- 2 23.4.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing on behalf of the State. This writ petition has been filed for quashing Annexure 1 by which the petitioner has been removed from the post of Gram Panchayat Secretary, Pipra Bagahi within Kutumba block of Aurangabad district in pursuance of an order of this order passed in CWJC No. 10643 of 2009. The order was passed without issuing any notice to the petitioner who was respondent in that case. The order of this court indicates that the District Magistrate, Aurangabad may consider that Kamta Prasad, petitioner of CWJC No. 10643/2009 has passed the Madhyama examination which is equivalent to the qualification of matriculation examination and he cannot be ousted on the ground that he did not fulfill the condition of the advertisement issued in 2007, requiring the candidates to pass matriculation examination. The petitioner has brought on record the matriculation certificate passed in 1990 in which he was declared to have passed in 2 1st Division. Kamta Prasad, on the other hand, had appeared in the matriculation examination in 1990 and has obtained 2nd division. It is not a case where Kamta Prasad had not appeared in matriculation examination, rather, in order to improve his marks he has thereafter appeared in Madhyama examination conducted by Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board in 2004 and passed in 1st division. it is submitted that the aforesaid facts were suppressed by Kamta Prasad, where the advertisement lays down a qualification, of matriculation and both the candidates have appeared in the matriculation examination, there is no reason to justify the grounds taken by Kamta Prasad that his Madhyama examination should be considered and the matriculation examination result should be ignored. If Kamta Prasad had only appeared in Madhyama examination and secured even 1st division and higher marks than the present petitioner, then this court would have held that it was perfectly justified on the part of the authorities to give preference to Kamta Prasad. However the facts are otherwise. This court vide order, dated 26.8.2009 has merely asked the District Magistrate, Aurangabad to consider the Madhyama result. However, the District Magistrate had to examine the qualification of the candidates Kamta Prasad viz-a-viz the present petitioner to decide as to which of the two meet the criteria laid down for selection to the post of Gram Panchayat Secretary. It is further submitted that the District Magistrate was obliged to hear the present petitioner before issuing Annexure 1. Obviously the order contained in Annexure 1 has been passed without 3 any notice to the petitioner and as such it is against the principles of natural justice and is, therefore, quashed. A representation has been filed on behalf of the petitioner to reconsider the matter. I accordingly direct that the District Magistrate, Aurangabad may issue notice to Kamta Prasad and the petitioner within one week from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order and after hearing the parties pass an order in the light of what has been observed aforesaid. Kamta Prasad would be at liberty to raise whatever issues he thinks proper before the District Magistrate. It is, however, clarified that the order appointing Kamta Prasad contained in Annexures 1 and 10 would be subject to the decision of the District Magistrate which ought to be taken within three months on receipt/production of a copy of this order. This writ petition is disposed of within the aforesaid observations and directions. haque (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)