IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5666 of 2009 MANJU KUMARI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 2. 04.05.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 6.4.2009 passed by the Appellate authority, Muzaffarpur in Case No. 1294 of 2009 giving directions to hold fresh counselling of Respondent no. 9. The submission from the reply filed by the Panchayat Sachiv before the Appellate authority is that Respondent no. 9 did not appear for counselling. The second submission is that after the merit panel had been prepared and the selection process was over, the question of directing any fresh counselling of Respondent no. 9 does not arise. The last submission from paragraph 18 of the writ application is that this order depriving or affecting the petitioner of the benefit of being selected candidate in pursuance of an application by Respondent no. 9 has been passed ex parte by the appellate authority without notice or hearing the petitioner. After hearing counsel for the State, this Court is satisfied that the only appropriate order that can be passed at this stage is to remand the matter to the appellate authority to pass a fresh reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law after hearing all concerned including Respondent no. 9. The appellate 2 authority shall deal with the issue as to whether the final merit panel had already been prepared before Respondent no. 9 approached the authority and. whether Respondent no. 9, as a matter of fact, had participated in the earlier counselling or not. The present order is being passed in absence of Respondent no. 9. Therefore, this Court considers it proper to direct the authority that counselling of Respondent no. 9 may be held in terms of the impugned order but the outcome of which for its sustenance shall depend on fresh reasoned and speaking order to be passed by the appellate authority. The writ application stands disposed. AKS/ (Navin Sinha, J.)