IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16178 of 2009 1. SURENDRA KUMAR S/O LATE SHEO BALAK SINGH R/O MOHALLA- LALJEE TOLA, P.S.- GANDHI MAIDAN AT AND DISTT.- PATNA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE CHIEF SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, MAIN SECRETARIAT, PATNA 3. THE SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS, MAIN SECRETARIAT, PATNA 4. THE BIHAR PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN BAILY ROAD, PATNA ----------- 2/ 05/01/2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner claims to have been appointed on the post of typist on 17.10.1981 in the Public Health and Engineering Department of the Government of Bihar under the Secretariat cadre. On 7.8.1987 advertisement No.13 of 1987 was published by the Bihar State Subordinate Service Selection Board, inviting applications for appointment on the post of Assistant in the Secretariat cadre. The petitioner was also an applicant in the reserved 0.5- OBC category. He claims to have secured 87 marks when he was recommended as a general category candidate for the Secretariat cadre, the qualifying marks for a general category candidate being -84. A controversy appears to have arisen 2 thereafter leading to several writ petitions and the need for re-appraisal of the appointments which led to issuance of an order dated 5.10.2009 under which the petitioner apprehended that he shall be reverted to the post of typist. He came to this Court in the present application when his apprehensions are alleged to have been substantiated as on 30.11.2009 the respondents have issued orders relieving him from the post of Assistant in the Secretariat cadre. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that prior to issuance of the order dated 30.11.2009 no show cause notice was issued to the petitioner, much less has he been given an opportunity to justify his appointment after selection. The order undoubtedly visits the petitioner with adverse civil consequences and, thus, he was required to be heard. The matter in issue appears to have been considered at length by a Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No.576/99 wherein certain directions have been issued by this Court and orders of the present nature with regard to persons similarly situated have been set at naught. 3 The orders dated 5.10.2009 and the consequential order dated 30.11.2009 shall remain in abeyance insofar as the petitioner is concerned. The respondents are directed to examine the case of the petitioner in light of the Division Bench judgement of this Court and pass fresh appropriate orders with regard to him within a maximum period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order when the impugned orders kept in abeyance shall merge finally with the fresh orders that may be passed by the respondent authorities. If the respondents propose to hold that the petitioner is not covered by the Division Bench decision of this Court and is not entitled to be accorded similar treatment, they shall be obliged to furnish him the reasons, grant him a personal or representative hearing and then pass a reasoned and speaking order setting out the grounds for difference of opinion distinguishing the case of the petitioner from those considered by the Division Bench. The writ application stands disposed. KC/ ( Navin Sinha, J.)