IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12975 of 2007 PRASOON KUMAR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 2/ 24/03/2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. This Court does not consider it necessary at this stage to issue notice to respondent No.9 in view of the nature of the order to be passed. The controversy relates to the appointment on the post of Panchayat Teacher in the physically handicapped category. The merit list was prepared on 26.1.2007 in Gram Panchayat-Pabai, P.S. Korha at Katihar. The contention of the petitioner that respondent No.9 who was at Serial No.1 of the merit list (while the petitioner was at Serial-2), was not present for counseling on 5.2.2007 and on 18.2.2007 finds support from annexure-15 dated 2.4.2007 addressed to the Block Development Officer by the Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat-Pabai. The petitioner then came to be appointed on 25.2.2007. His grievance is that he has been then removed in violation of the principles of natural justice by an order dated 5.9.2007. The respondents have decided to go in a fresh counseling on a request by respondent No.9. 2 A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the official respondents. Reliance is placed on a general government instruction dated 8.2.2007 that if anyone furnishes reasonable grounds as to why he was not able to participate in the earlier counseling, he should not be disappointed and should be considered sympathetically. The order dated 29.10.2007 of the Block Development Officer appended to the counter affidavit at annexure-B series itself notices that the petitioner also being a physically handicapped candidate was being unnecessarily harassed in the concluding portion of the order. The order of termination of the petitioner in violation of the principles of natural justice is clearly not sustainable, more so, when it is an admitted position that respondent No.9 did not participate in the counseling. However, since this Court has not issued notice to respondent No.9, it shall not be prudent for this Court to pass any orders of a determinative nature at this stage. This Court, therefore, only pronounces that the order of removal of the petitioner dated 25.2.2007 being in violation of the principles of natural justice was a non-est order, like a still born child, which never comes into existence, placing reliance on a judgement 3 reported in AIR 1974 S.C. 1471 (Nawabkhan Abbaskhan v. State of Gujarat. If that be so, the respondents shall now be obliged to consider the legality of the termination of the petitioner and the justification for the counseling of respondent No.9 when it is the case of the respondents themselves that the latter did not participate in the earlier counseling, not once, but twice, leading to the appointment of the petitioner. The appointment having been made, the selection process was over. Let such appropriate decision in law be taken by respondent No.4 within a maximum period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, after hearing all concerned, including respondent No.9. The writ application is disposed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)