IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.18074 of 2010 1. ARBIND KUMAR SINGH S/O LATE RAMDEO PRASAD SINGH R/O PALI ASTHAN MADHUBANI P.S.K. HAT DISTT- PURNEA 2. AAMRENDRA KUMAR SINGH S/O LATE JANARDAN PD. SINGH R/O SHAKTI NAGAR P.S.K. HAT, DISTT-PURENA--PETITIONERS Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECY. HUMAN RESOSURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPTT. GOVT. OF BIHAR, NEW SECRETARIAT PATNA 2. DIRECTOR PRIMARY EDUCATION, GOVT. OF BIHAR, NEW SECRETARIAT, PATNA 3. THE COMMISSIONER, PURENA DIVISION, PURENA 4. THE REGIONAL DEPTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, PURNEA DIVISI0N, PURNEA 5. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, PURNEA 6. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, PURNEA 7. THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, PURENA--RESPONDENTS ----------- For the Petitioner: Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the State: Mr. Arjun Singh, Advocate ---------- 2 9.12.2010 Heard learned counsel for the parties. The two petitioners claimed themselves to be validly appointed teachers of Primary School and they approached the Divisional Commissioner, Purnea Division for grant of appropriate seniority in terms of circulars and rules promulgated by the State of Bihar which has been annexed as annexure-1. Reliance has been placed on Rule 8(2) of 1993 Rules because both the petitioners are supposed to be I. Sc. trained teachers. Despite the detailed representation having been forwarded and recommended, by a cryptic order the Divisional Commissioner has rejected the claim in terms of annexure-4. This order is dated 24th September, 2010. On the face of it the Court fails to understand the basis as to why the Divisional Commissioner has rejected the claim as the cryptic order has failed to assign any reason. The contention of the petitioners is that if the - 2 - Divisional Commissioner had a look at the circulars the order in question may not have been passed. In that view of the matter annexure-4 dated 24.9.2010 is hereby quashed. This writ application is allowed with a direction to the Divisional Commissioner, i.e. respondent no.3 to pass a speaking order afresh preferably within a period of three months from the date of communication or production of a copy of this order keeping in mind the Rule 8(2) of 1993 Rules (annexure- 1). RPS (Ajay Kumar Tripathi,J.)