IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2579 of 2010 1. NARENDRA KUMAR S/O ARJUN PRASAD R/O VILL.- BISIAIT, P.S. MESKAUR, DISTT.- NAWADA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, NAWADA 3. THE SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER, NAWADA 4. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, MESKAUR, DISTT.- NAWADA 5. THE CIRCLE OFFICER, MESKAUR, DISTT.- NAWADA 6. THE SARPANCH, GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ, BISIAIT, BLOCK- MESKAUR, DISTT.- NAWADA 7. BIRENDRA KUMAR TARUN S/O KISHUN PRASAD R/O VILL.- PASADHI, P.S. MESKAUR, DISTT.- NAWADA ----------- 02. 24.08.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 3.11.2009, passed by the District Magistrate, Nawada in Case No. 100 of 2009, preferred by the petitioner rejecting the challenge to the termination of his appointment as Panchayat Sachiv by order dated 25.3.2009. A panel was prepared for appointment on the post of Panchayat Sachiv. The respondent no.7 who is stated to have held the qualification of Madhyama was placed at serial no.1 and petitioner who held the qualification of Matriculate was placed at serial no.2. The Advertisement specified Matriculate as the qualification. The petitioner came to be appointed on 7.11.2007. Subsequently, Madhyama was held to be equivalent to Matriculate in pursuance of certain 2 orders of this Court. The respondents issued a statutory notification on 5.1.2009, making legislative changes in the Rules regulating the appointment to incorporate Madhyama as an eligible qualification equivalent to Matriculate with retrospective effect from 31.1.2008. A retrospective effect even prior to 31.1.2008 was sought to be given by the Secretary of the Department through Administrative instructions. This Court held that a legislative amendment cannot be given retrospective effect from a date prior to that mentioned in the legislative amendment by an executive instruction. Unfortunately, the District Magistrate persists in passing orders to the contrary. If the petitioner was appointed prior to the date of the legislative amendment and there appear no allegations of illegality or other ineligibility in his order of selection, as apparent from the order of termination dated 25.3.2009, the petitioner could not have been terminated to accommodate respondent no.7. In any event, it does not appear from the order dated 25.3.2009 that the petitioner was heard before he was terminated. It is his case in paragraph-10 of the application that the order of termination was ex-parte 3 in violation of the principles of natural justice. If the original order dated 25.3.2009 is itself not sustainable being in violation of the principles of natural justice, the appellate order dated 3.11.2009 automatically collapses. The orders dated 25.3.2009 and 3.11.2009 are set aside and the matter is remanded to the District Magistrate, Nawada to hear the parties, the petitioner and respondent no.7, apart from others considered necessary and pass a fresh reasoned order within a maximum period of one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order before him. Pending disposal of the matter by the District Magistrate, status quo between the petitioner and respondent no.7 as existing today shall be maintained. The application stands disposed. P.K. (Navin Sinha, J.)