IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4875 of 2009 SUSHAMA SINHA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 2/ 17/04/2009 At the outset itself learned counsel for the petitioner prays for leave to implead the complainant Gunjan Kumari as private respondent No.8. He is permitted to do so during the course of the day. The petitioner was appointed as a Panchayat Teacher on 5.10.2007 in the Primary School, Rampur Gram Panchayat Kiratpur, Samastipur. A complaint was then filed by the newly added respondent No.8 with regard to the selections made on 29.1.2007. This was enquired into by the Block Development Officer, the statutory authority under Rule-18. Accepting the grievance of the complainant the appointment of the petitioner has been cancelled. It is the specific case of the petitioner in paragraph Nos.17 and 18 of the writ application that neither was the petitioner impleaded as a party in the complaint entertained by the Block Development Officer nor was the petitioner noticed or heard before the impugned order came to be passed. Learned counsel for the State invites the attention of the Court to the recitals of the impugned 2 order dated 29.1.2008 that the records were examined in presence of the parties. He submits that it necessarily postulates that the petitioner was also heard. Whether the petitioner was heard or not, in the background of his allegation on oath that he was not noticed and heard has to be culled out from the recitals in the impugned order itself. Even if the learned counsel for the State be presumed to be correct that the term “all parties” includes the petitioner, this Court still finds it difficult to sustain the impugned order. There is no discussion in the impugned order of the defence of the petitioner may have taken and why it did not appeal to the statutory authority. This discussion by the statutory authority of the defence of the petitioner was a statutory obligation, a necessary part of the principles of natural justice to give reasons why the defence of the petitioner was not accepted. In any view of the matter, whether the petitioner was not noticed or that the order does not contain reasons for rejection of his defence, the order dated 29.1.2008 is not sustainable. To the stay the impugned order today and to issue notice to the private respondent shall serve no purpose. This Court today is hearing writ petitions of the year-2001. Perhaps, this writ application will come up for hearing 7 to 8 years hence. Therefore, in order to protect 3 the interest of the petitioner and the private respondent this Court considers it proper to dispose of the writ application at this stage itself with proper opportunity to both of them before the appellate authority. The petitioner is stated to have already filed an appeal before the appellate authority under the amended rules of 2008. Undoubtedly, under rule-2 of the amended rules only pending applications before the Block Development Officer stood transferred. The impugned order which decided the matter prior to the new rules being formulated on 25.8.2008 therefore does not stand transferred by operation of law. But, since this Court has held that the order dated 29.1.2008 is in violation of principles of natural justice and devoid of reasons, the matter is remanded to the appellate authority. The petitioner shall now file an application for impleadment of the newly added respondent in his application pending before the appellate authority. The appellate authority is required to issue notice to the newly added respondent and also to the other Government functionaries who are required to answer the issues. The appellate authority shall then after hearing of the parties and considering their objections proceeded to dispose the matter by a reasoned and speaking order showing due application of mind to 4 the issues raised before him, a brief discussion for his conclusions based on the issue displaying application of mind. This is required to be done within the statutory period fixed under rule-2 of the amended rules to be computed from the date that the petitioner appears before the appellate authority along with a copy of the present order. The application stands allowed to the extent indicated. KC (Navin Sinha, J.)