IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.18429 of 2009 SATISH KUMAR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 02 31/03/2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. In the nature of the order being passed, the Court does not consider it necessary at this stage to issue notice to private respondent no.-6 as his interest is adequately protected in the order. The petitioner and respondent no.-6 were applicants for the post of Secretary, Gram Kutchury at Kukraun, East Gram Panchayat, in the District of Purnea. Respondent no.6 was at serial no.1 of the panel and the petitioner was at serial no.-4. The candidature of respondent no.6 was allegedly rejected on grounds that his residential certificate was approximately 7 years old. The candidates at serial no. 2 and 3 allegedly had also not submitted their requisite residential certificates leading to the appointment of the petitioner on 28.9.2007. Respondent no.6 then filed Complaint Case No. 18 of 2007 on 7.12.2007 which ruled in favour of respondent no.6. The Surpanch then preferred an appeal before the District Magistrate, who has affirmed the original order. The petitioner stands 2 unseated. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted firstly that he was at the fulcrum of the entire issue, his appointment was at stake, but he has not been noticed or heard either during the hearing of Complaint Case No. 18 of 2007 by the Sub Divisional Officer or by the appellate authority the District Magistrate. The next submission is that any complaint against the appointment of the petitioner had to be filed within a statutory period of 30 days, but respondent no.6 filed an application thereafter which has been entertained. If the petitioner stands unseated, to grant him interim relief ex parte at this stage may amount to virtually allowing the writ petition by an interim order. From the recitals in the impugned order of the Sub Divisional Officer and the District Magistrate prima facie it does not appear that the petitioner was noticed and heard. The aspect of an allegedly belated application of respondent no.6 also does not find any discussion in the impugned orders. The petitioner has specifically stated in paragraphs 14 and 15 that the orders are ex parte beyond the statutory period. The matter is remanded to the Sub 3 Divisional Officer concerned, who shall now issue notice to the petitioner and respondent no.6 and others concerned and after due opportunity to them and hearing them pass a fresh reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law within a maximum period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Till then the impugned orders dated 9.1.2008 and 25.6.2009 are directed to be kept in abeyance and status quo be maintained between the parties when the orders shall finally merge in the fresh order to be passed by the Sub Divisional Officer. The application stands disposed. P.K. ( Navin Sinha, J.)