IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.1338 of 2010 In (CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE 5832/2010) 1. Tapeshwar Singh, S/O Sri Raghunandan Singh R/O Vill.- Dasarath Bigha, P.O. Rafiganj, P.S. Rafiganj, Distt.- Aurangabad 2. Munilal Prasad Singh, S/O Mudrika Singh, R/O Vill.- Judi Bigha, P.O. Kochnasa, P.S. Kinjar, Distt.- Arwal --- Appellants Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Director, Secondary Education, Secondary Education Office, Patna 3. The District Magistrate, Gaya, Bihar 4. The Regional Deputy Director Of Education Magadh Division, Gaya 5. The District Education Officer, Gaya ----- Respondents. ---------------------------------- 3. 11.8.2011 Heard Mr. Brishketu Sharan Pandey learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Amish Kumar, learned Assistant Counsel to Standing Counsel No.4. Learned counsel for the appellants presses I.A. No. 7568 of 2010, which is in the nature of condonation application, seeking condonation of delay of one day in filing this appeal. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. I.A. No. 7568 of 2010 is accordingly disposed of. This intra court appeal has been filed under 2 Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the High Court of Judicature at Patna against the order dated 14.7.2010 passed in C.W. J.C. No. 5832 of 2010 ( Tapeshwar Singh & Ors. Vrs. The State of Bihar & Ors.). The writ petition had been filed by the appellants being aggrieved by the order dated 20.3.2009 passed by the District Magistrate, Gaya by which, inter alia, it was ordered that the appellants shall not be allowed to perform any duty related to examination matter and they shall be under watch of the Principal as well as the District Education Officer with regard to any irregularity committed during examination as well as recommendation for considering their transfer. Learned Single Judge after hearing the parties had disposed off the writ petition without interfering with the said order on the ground that the petitioners (appellants herein) have no indispensable right to participate in the examination process and it was also premature in view of the fact that no transfer order had yet been passed. Liberty was further given to the petitioners to challenge the transfer order if and when it was passed. Learned counsel while pressing this appeal has 3 submitted that the learned Single Judge has failed to consider the fact that the order prima-facie is very harsh. He also submits that without any show-cause or without any enquiry the order is almost in terms of a final order by which the petitioners have been prejudiced without the due procedure of law being followed. After hearing learned counsel for the parties as well as after perusing the materials on record, it appears that pursuant to the order under challenge the appellants were served show-cause notice by letter no.421 dated 9.7.2009 issued by respondent no.4. The appellants also replied to the same on 11.7.2009. However, it is submitted that no final order pursuant to the submission of their show-cause has been passed till date. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to interfere with the order under appeal but only direct respondent no.4 to pass appropriate order pursuant to the show-cause served to the appellants and submission of reply by them. It goes without saying that if the appellants are desirous of personal hearing, such opportunity should also be given to them before passing any final order. Let the exercise be completed within a 4 period of two months from the date of production/receipt of a copy of this order upon respondent.4. With the aforementioned directions the present appeal stands disposed off. Vinay/ ( S. K. Katriar, J.) (Ahsanuddin Amanullah,J.)