IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3386 of 2008 RINKU KUMARI, WIFE OF SRI PRAMOD KUMAR PASWAN, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- BHAWRAH, POLICE STATION- NOKHA, DISTRICT- ROHTAS :--PETITIONER. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAYATI RAJ, BIHAR, PATNA. 4. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, ROHTAS (SASARAM). 5. DISTRICT PANCHAYAT RAJ OFFICER, ROHTAS (SASARAM.) 6. SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER, NOKHA, DISTRICT- ROHTAS. 7. BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, NOKHA, DISTRICT- ROHTAS. 8. SARPANCH, GRAM KACHAHARI, SOTAWA GRAMPANCHAYAT, POLICE STATION- NOKHA, DISTRICT- ROHTAS …RTESPONDENTS 1ST SET. 9. KIRAN KUMARI, WIFE OF RAJENDRA KUMAR, VILLAGE- SOTAWA, POLICE STATION- NOKHA, DISTRICT- ROHTAS :-- RESPONDENT 2ND SET. ----------- For the petitioner : Mr. Sandip Singh, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Rakesh Prabhat, A.C. to G.P.-19. For Respondent No. 9 : Mr. Jagdish Prasad No. 1, Advocate. ====== 3. 28.06.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, State and the Private Respondent No. 9 who has appeared through counsel who prays for time to file counter affidavit but considering the nature of the order which this Court is proposing to pass does not require any adjournment for such purpose. 2. Petitioner was earlier appointed as Secretary, Gram Kutchery under order dated 17.10.2007, Annexure-4/1. This writ petition has been filed by her praying, inter alia, to quash the order dated 12.11.2007 , Annexure-7, whereunder she has been removed from the post of Secretary, Gram Kutchery on the ground that she passed matriculation through compartmental examination. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that aforesaid impugned order has been passed in compliance of the instructions of the District Panchayati Raj Officer contained in Letter No. 397 dated 15.10.2007, 2 Annexure-5, whereunder the District Panchayati Raj Officer has opined that candidate passing any examination through annual examination is better than those who pass the same examination through compartmental examination. Appreciating the direction of the District Panchayati Raj Officer petitioner has been removed from the post of Panchayat Secretary under the impugned order dated 12.11.2007, Annexure-7 as she passed matriculation examination through compartmental examination. In this connection it is further submitted on behalf of the petitioner that having removed the petitioner from the post of Panchayat Secretary Kiran Kumari, Private Respondent No. 9 has been appointed on the said post although she has secured lesser marks than the petitioner but she passed matriculation through annual examination. Learned counsel further pointed out that in terms of the Bihar Gram Kutchery Secretary (Appointment and Service Condition) Rules, 2007 minimum qualification for appointment on the post of Secretary, Gram Kutchery is provided with further provision that from amongst the eligible applicant(s) whoever has secured higher marks is to be considered for such appointment. In this connection learned counsel referred to sub- clause (5) of Rule 6 of the aforesaid Rules. He further submitted that petitioner having already been appointed and serving on the post, rules of natural justice required that before removing her a show-cause notice is given which was also not given and she was straightway served with the impugned order dated 12.11.2007, Annexure-7. 3. Counsel for the State and Private Respondent No. 9 submitted that only those who are not able to clear the annual examination appear in the compartmental examination and as the petitioner failed in the annual examination, may be in one subject, 3 which she cleared later in the compartmental examination she should be treated as inferior to those who have cleared all the papers in the annual examination. 4. In rejoinder learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that aforesaid distinction which the counsel for the State and the Private Respondent are trying to make out between the annual and the compartmental examination is not born out from the Rules which only require the candidate securing higher marks be considered for appointment ignoring the fact whether such marks were obtained in the annual examination or through compartmental examination. 5. Having considered the aforesaid submission as also the fact that before passing the impugned order dated 12.11.2007, Annexure-7 no opportunity of being heard was given to the petitioner the same is quashed directing both the petitioner and Respondent No. 9 to appear before the Sarpanch, Gram Kutchery, Sotawa, Nokha, Rohtas on 1st August, 2011 whereafter the Sarpanch shall hear both the parties and pass appropriate order in the matter taking into account the provisions of the aforesaid Rules as also the relevant instructions issued by the State Government from time to time. Sarpanch should pass the final order as early as possible, in any case within one month from 01.08.2011. 6. The writ application is, accordingly, disposed of. P.K.P. ( V. N. Sinha, J.)