Anil v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7672 of 2016 =========================================================== Anil, S/o Maljit Paswan, r/o - vill- Bhanail, P.S.- Akbarpur, Distt.- Nawada, .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

2. The Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

3. The Principal Secretary, Department, of Education, Bihar, Patna.

4. The District Magistrate Nawada, Nawada,

5. The District Education Officer, Nawada.

6. The District Programme Officer, Nawada.

7. The Block Development Officer, Roh Block Nawada.

8. The Block Education Officer, Roh, Block, Nawada.

9. Pramukh cum Chairman, Selection Unit, Roh, Block, Nawada. .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Amresh Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Uday Prasad, AC to GP-22 =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPADHYAY ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 10-04-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and State. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order contained in Annexure-5 dated 25.02.2016.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was condemned unheard. The so-called enquiry was conducted without notice to the petitioner and as such the order terminating the petitioner is in violation of principle of natural justice and fair play. Learned counsel submits that the certificate of the petitioner is valid and respondents have proceeded that the certificates are not valid. He submits that the petitioner could have explained the authorities about the validity of the certificate, if the petitioner was

Patna High Court CWJC No.7672 of 2016 dt.10-04-2018 2/2 granted opportunity of hearing in the enquiry. In view of the above, the writ application is allowed to the extent that Annexure-5, which was passed without opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, is unsustainable and is accordingly quashed. However, quashing of the order will not confer any consequential benefit in favour of the petitioner and the same will abide by the final outcome by the fresh enquiry with opportunity to the petitioner to participate in the enquiry. Necessary decision of opportunity of hearing will be made by the respondents within a maximum period of 60 days from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. (Anil Kumar Upadhyay, J) Uday/- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date19.04.2018 Transmission Date