- (1.) HEARD the counsel for the parties on the application for condonation of delay.
(2.) IN view of the reasons stated in the Interlocutory application being I.A. No.3001 of 2011, the delay in filing the L.P is condoned. Accordingly, the aforesaid I.A.No.3001 of 2011 stands disposed of. The writ petitionerrespondent No.7 challenged the order dated 5.3.2010 issued by the Coordinator, Block Education Committee, Pakur, whereby the petitioner's appointment on the post of Para Teacher was cancelled. Learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition of the writ petitioner vide judgment dated 4.7.2011. Hence, this L.P.A. by the appellant nonpetitioner No.7 in the writ petition. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the order dated
(3.) 3.2010 had two parts. By one part, the writ petitioner's appointment was cancelled and by second part the appellant respondent No.7 was given appointment. The appellant submitted reply to the writ petition stating therein that after holding complete inquiry, the writ petitioner's service was terminated. The State suppressed those facts before the learned Single Judge and the learned Single Judge under impression that only the writ petitioner's appointment was cancelled without any reason and on the basis of the circular dated 18.3.2011 whereby the decision was taken not to appoint untrained candidates as Para Teacher after 1.4.2010, whereas the writ petitioner was appointed earlier and his appointment was approved by the letter dated 28.5.2009, allowed the writ petition without considering any of the plea of the appellant. 5. It appears from the record of the writ petition that the appellant was not given any opportunity of hearing and none of the please raised by the appellant has been considered in the impugned judgment dated 4.7.2011 in spite of the fact that the appellant placed on records certain relevant materials in reply to writ, which requires consideration. Since, the order impugned dated 4.7.2011 has been passed without hearing the appellant, and without setting aside of the order of the appointment of the appellant but consequence of impugned order results into cancellation of the appellant's appointment, therefore, there is a mistake is apparent in the order dated 4.7.2011 and the principles of natural justice stood violated which may be due to inadvertence as it appears that without issuing any notice to the respondent, respondent put in appearance and filed the counter, but due to inadvertence his case was not considered by the learned Single Judge.;