Letters Patent Appeal No.1056 OF 2000 THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. ----------------(Appellants) Versus RAJESH PRASAD SINHA ---------------------- (Respondent) P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BARIN GHOSH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANANDAN SINGH J U D G M E N T Barin Ghosh & J.N. Singh, J.J. It was pleaded in the writ petition that the petitioner was appointed upon his name being forwarded by the Employment Exchange and upon his selection by an appropriate selection committee and accordingly, the order terminating his service on the ground that the appointment of the petitioner was an illegal appointment is not sustainable. It was contended that by the order impugned, in addition to the petitioner, services of at least one other had also been terminated, who had also been appointed in the similar manner as the petitioner was appointed. It was contended that the said person approached this Court by filing a writ petition and this Court had quashed the said order of termination and remitted back the matter to the authorities concerned for 2 reconsideration. In view of the said decision of this Court rendered in the case of that other person, the petition of the petitioner was allowed and at the same time the order of termination was set aside and the matter was remitted back to the authorities concerned for reconsideration. In the appeal, it has been contended that the case of the other person, whose case was directed to be reconsidered in the other writ petition, was considered and thereupon his services have been terminated. The said state of affair clearly depicts that in the case of that other person the State accepted the Judgment of this Court, which had exactly the same effect as that of the Judgment and Order under appeal and accordingly, it would be unjust to interfere with the Judgment and Order under appeal and thereby to lay a path for dealing with similarly situated persons in two different manners. At the same time, it does not appear from the order impugned in the writ petition that before the said order was passed any opportunity of hearing was accorded to the petitioner. In the circumstances also and in particular when the service was accorded upon consideration of names sponsored 3 by the Employment Exchange, it would be unjust to interfere with the Judgment and Order under appeal. Accordingly, we do not interfere with the Judgment and order under appeal and leave it to the appropriate authority of the State to reconsider the case of the petitioner after giving him a notice of hearing. Patna High Court, 3rd July, 2008, S.B.P. (Barin Ghosh, J.) (J.N. Singh, J.)