IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9782 of 2010 CHANDRA MOHAN JHA, SON OF LATE RAMAKANT JHA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KABILPUR, P.S. BAHADURPUR, DISTRICT DARBHANGA. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. SRI SHYAMANAND KUMAR, THE THEN DIRECTOR, HIGHER EDUCATIN, HUMAN RESOURCES DEPT., GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 4. MAITHILI ACADEMY, SASTRINAGAR, FLAT NO.740/800, PATNA-23 THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN-CUM-SECRETARY. ----------- 02. 29.06.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the State and the counsel for the Maithili Academy(hereinafter referred to as the Academy). 2. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 5.4.2010, Annexure-1 passed by the Director, Higher Education, whereunder he has instructed the Chairman-cum-Director of the Academy to cancel the promotion of the petitioner on the post of Personal Assistant. He is also aggrieved by the office order bearing Memo No.45/10 dated 6.5.2010, Annexure-1/B passed by the Chairman-cum-Director of the Academy, whereunder he has found the cause shown by the petitioner in response to the show cause notice dated 30.4.2010, Annexure-1/A to be unsatisfactory and proceeded to cancel the promotion of the petitioner on the post of Personal Assistant in compliance of the direction of the Director, Higher Education dated 5.4.2010. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that explanation sought from the petitioner under show cause notice dated 30.4.2010 is wholly misconceived as Chairman-cum-Director of the Academy is bound by the order of the Director, Higher Education dated 5.4.2010, - 2 - whereunder he had asked the Chairman-cum-Director of the Academy to cancel the promotion of the petitioner on the post of Personal Assistant and to recover the emoluments paid on account of such promotion. It is further submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he has not been paid any salary in the light of the promotion granted to him on the post of Personal Assistant and recovery is wholly without jurisdiction. 4. During the hearing of the petition counsel for the Academy and the State confirmed the position that no notice was given by the Director, Higher Education to the petitioner before he passed order dated 5.4.2010, Annexure-1, in the circumstances, there is no difficulty in concluding that show cause notice issued by the Chairman-cum-Director of the Academy to the petitioner for cancelling his promotion on the post of Personal Assistant did not serve any purpose as the Chairman-cum-Director of the Academy is bound by the order of the Director, Higher Education dated 5.4.2010. It is, thus quite apparent that the impugned order of cancellation and recovery dated 6.5.2010 has been passed without giving the petitioner opportunity to explain as the said order has been passed in compliance of the order of the Director, Higher education who did not had any occasion to hear the petitioner. 5. In view of my findings above, I quash the two impugned orders dated 5.4.2010 and 6.5.2010, Annexures-1 and 1/B and remit the matter to the Director, Higher Education with direction to the petitioner to appear before him and submit representation highlighting - 3 - the point that he does not have any jurisdiction to look into the matter in the light of the resolution of the State Government bearing Memo No.876 dated 11.3.1976 and the memorandum and by-laws of the Academy and the Director, Higher education should pass fresh order in the light of the submission of the petitioner made in his representation. Petitioner is directed to file his representation along with a certified copy of this order before the Director, Higher Education as early as possible, in any case within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Requisition wherefor should be filed by the counsel for the petitioner today itself. Rajesh/ (V.N. Sinha, J.)