IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.374 of 2009 KALPANA RANI, W/O SRI SANJIV KUMAR THAKUR, R/O MOHIUDDINPUR, P.O. HANSA, P.S. WARISNAGAR, DISTRICT- SAMASTIPUR. -APPELLANT Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 2. THE DIRECTOR, PRIMARY EDUCATION, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, SAMASTIPUR, DISTRICT-SAMASTIPUR. 4. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, SAMASTIPUR, DISTRICT SAMASTIPUR. 5. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, WARISNAGAR, DISTRICT-SAMASTIPUR. 6. THE BLOCK EDUCATION EXTENSION OFFICER, WARISNAGAR, DISTRICT-SAMASTIPUR. 7. THE MUKHIYA, GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ, MOHIUDDINPUR, BLOCK WARISNAGAR, DISTRICT-SAMASTIPUR. 8. THE SECRETARY, GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ, MOHIUDDINPUR, BLOCK WARISNAGAR, DISTRICT- SAMASTIPUR. 9. PRASHANT KUMAR, S/O SRI DINESH PRASAD THAKUR, R/O VILLAGE-MOHIUDDINPUR, P.S. WARISNAGAR, DISTRICT-SAMASTIPUR. -PETITIONERS-RESPONDENTS 10.SHABANA PRAVEEN, D/O MD. YASEEN, R/O VILLAGE MOHIUDDINPUR, P.S. WARISNAGAR, DISTRICT-SAMASTIPUR. -RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT 6 08.10.2009 Heard the parties, including the learned counsel for the State. Since the writ Court has remanded the matter back to the learned Collector, Samastipur, mainly because the order of termination of service of the writ petitioner was 2 passed without giving him opportunity of hearing, we are not inclined to interfere with the order of remand where-under the Collector has been directed to reconsider the whole matter relating to termination of the services of the writ petitioner without being prejudiced by his earlier order and pass a reasoned order preferably within a period of three months. Learned counsel for the appellant, however, pointed out that the writ Court has made an observation in the top portion of page 2 of the order under appeal which creates an impression that even if the writ petitioner’s appointment is terminated the respondent no.9 cannot be appointed in view of Government decision imposing complete ban of fresh appointment. According to learned counsel for the appellant when the whole matter was being remanded to the Collector, no such observation was required and the issue whether there is any ban by the Government relating to the transaction in question and right of respondent no.9 for appointment should also be left upon to be considered and decided by the Collector. Since we have decided not to interfere with the order of remand and the Collector, Samastipur, is required to 3 decide the whole matter relating to termination of service of the writ petitioner afresh, we clarify that the aforesaid observation of the writ court would not stand in the way of the Collector, Samastipur, in considering and deciding the right of respondent no.9 / the appellant herein also in accordance with law, if such an occasion arises. With this clarification, the appeal is disposed. (Shiva Kirti Singh, ACJ.) (Shyam Kishore Sharma, J.) AAhmad