IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12952 of 2009 ANIL KUMAR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 2/ 08-10-2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner contends that he was appointed on the post of Secretary, Gram Kuchahari and after compliance with procedure an appointment letter was issued on 27.09.2007. He joined on 01.10.2007 and started discharge of duties. Respondent No.7 filed a complaint before the Subdivisional Officer, Dhamdaha with regard to the irregularities in the selection process. Complaint Case No. 22 of 2007 was initiated and by order dated 02.01.2008 his selection was cancelled. The petitioner asserts in paragraph -11 of the writ petition that he was not heard nor was a show cause issued to him before passing of the impugned order. Aggrieved by non-implementation of the aforesaid order respondent no.7 then preferred an appeal before the Collector, registered as Miscellaneous Case No. 47 of 2008. Again no notice was issued to the petitioner to show cause nor was he heard and orders were issued for compliance of the order of the Subdivisional Officer. Learned counsel for the State submits that - 2 - notice may be issued to respondent no.7. From the recitals in the order dated 07.10.2007 of the Subdivisional Officer in Case No.22 of 2007 it is apparent that notice was issued only to the Sarpanch of the concerned Gram Panchayat. No notice was issued to the petitioner. It was only the concerned Sarpanch who was heard. The last paragraph of the order in the miscellaneous case states that if any selected candidate was aggrieved by the order, he may prefer an appeal. The appeal before the Collector was preferred not by the petitioner but by respondent no. 7 who was aggrieved by non-implementation of the order of the S.D.O. and at which stage it was again only the Sarpanch who was heard. On the face of the impugned orders it is clearly apparent that they are not sustainable in law. Even if it is presumed that notice was issued to the petitioner, there is no discussion that he refused to file a show cause or consideration of any show-cause was filed by him. In either event of the matter, the impugned orders are clearly not sustainable. This Court today is hearing writ applications instituted as far back was in the year 2002-2003. If this Court were to stay the operation of the impugned order and issue notice to respondent no.7, no useful purpose shall be served as the petitioner shall continue to have the - 3 - benefit of the interim order without any adjudication. Refusal to grant stay will result in benefit to respondent no.7 which prima facie appears that he is not entitled. The impugned orders dated 07.10.2007 and 11.02.2009 are set aside. The matter is remanded to the S.D.O., Dhamdaha to rehear Case No. 22 of 2007 after issuing notice to the petitioner and respondent no.7 and any other concerned after due liberty to present their case. Let the petitioner appear before the S.D.O. Dharmdaha within a period of four weeks from today along with a copy of the present order. If the petitioner does not so appear within the time stipulated, the impugned order shall require no interference. In the event the petitioner approaches the S.D.O., Dhamdaha in time, the status quo as of today shall be maintained with regard to the post on in question. The writ application stands disposed off. ( Navin Sinha, J ) BTiwary/