Judgment Radha Mohan Prasad and J JJ. 1. In this writ application the petitioner prays for quashing of the order, passed by the Commissioner. Tirbut Division (respondent No 3) a true copy whereof is contained in annexure 9 whereby and where under the order of dismissal of respondent No 4 from the post of dafadar has been set aside as also for quashing of the consequential order passed by the Superintendent of Police. Muzaffarpur (respondent No.3)appointing respondent No.4 to the post of Dafadar after setting aside the petitioners appointment to the said post, vide annexure-4. 2. In short, the case of the petitioner is that the last permanent incumbent of the post of Dafadar for Beat No 7 within Kranti police station in the district of Muzaffarpur died on 9-8-1974. on 18-3-1975 respondent No.4 was temporarily appointed as Dafadar by the Superintendent of police, muzaffarpur (respondent No 3) It is alleged that the said appointment was made by the local police officialy without adopting the procedure prescribed for the said appointment, and against the said appointment one Moin Ahmed filed a petition before the District Magistrate, which was registered as Misc. case No.25/75. The District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur, vide order dated 6-7-1976 allowed the Misc. case, directed the Superintendent of police to call for nomination roll from the panchayat as per rule and after considering the claims of the parties is either appoint any one of the nominated or reject all of them, so that appointment could be made from the nomination roll on the basis of suitability. However, he directed that respondent No.4 will in the meantime, function as temporary dafadar till the finalisalion of the appointment by the Superintendent of Police. It is claimed that on 17-12-1977 the petitioner was appointed as Dafadar on probation, but was, however, not allowed to join. Against the same he filed a number of tepresentations before the District Magistrate and the Superintendent of police However, in the meantime, the Superintendent of Police called for nomination from the concerred panchavat and by order dated 26-5-1976 appointed respondent No 4 as Dafadar, a true copy whereof has been annexed as annexure 2. 3. Against the same he filed a number of tepresentations before the District Magistrate and the Superintendent of police However, in the meantime, the Superintendent of Police called for nomination from the concerred panchavat and by order dated 26-5-1976 appointed respondent No 4 as Dafadar, a true copy whereof has been annexed as annexure 2. 3. As the name of the petitioner had been duly nominated by the concerned panchayat, but was not appointed, because no notice of interview had been served upon him and thus, could not appear before the Superintendent of police at the interview, he filed a petition before the District magistrate challenging the appointment of respondent No.4, which was registered as Misc. case No.14 of 78 The District Magistrate allowed the said petition of the petitioner, vide order dated 17-1-1979 and remanded the matter to the Superintendent of Police for making fresh appointment after giving notice of interview to the petitioner. A true copy of the order dated 17-1-1979 has been annexed as annexure-3 to the writ application. Thereafter, it is claimed by the petitioner that fresh interview took place and the superintendent of police, vide order dated 5-2-1979 appointed respondent no.4 as Dafadar on temporary basis. However, the said appointment is said to have been made on the basis of verbal recommendation of the officials and accordingly, the office was directed by the S P. to up the relevant records before him for his final orders. A true copy of the said order has been annexed as annexure 4 to the writ application. 4. Later, a complaint received against respondent No.4 was enquired into by the officer incharge as per direction of the Superintendent of police, who, in his report dated 23-7-1979 stated that respondent No 4 had no control over his subordinate Chaukidar and that he did not perform his patrolling duty and had no control over crimes in the area. Thus, it was reported that he was not fit for the post of Dafadar. The said report was also concurred by the Circle Inspector, who, in his note dated 22-9-1979 stated that he was inefficient and should not be allowed to continue on the post. Accordingly, respondent No 4 was served with a show cause notice as to why he should not be removed from service. The said report was also concurred by the Circle Inspector, who, in his note dated 22-9-1979 stated that he was inefficient and should not be allowed to continue on the post. Accordingly, respondent No 4 was served with a show cause notice as to why he should not be removed from service. A true copy of the said show cause notice has been annexed annexure 5 to the writ application Respondent no.4 filed his show cause on 18-10-1979, a true copy whereof has been annexed as annexure 6 to the writ application Thereafter, the Superintendent of Police considered the matter and the show cause and by order dated 23-11-1972 dismissed respondent No.4 from the post in question vide annexure 7. 5. On 8-1-1980 the petitioner was appointed as Dafadar vide annexure 8, on which post he joined and claims to have continued He also claims to have earned severer rewards and commendations from the authorities for acts of bravery etc. Few years later, respondent No 4 preferred appeal before the Commissioner, Tirhut Division (respondent No.2) which was registered as Misc case No.122 of 1983-84. It is alleged that although the petitioner was made party respondent in the said appeal, but no notice was over served on him and the case was decided ex pane by the impugned order, 6. No counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the official respondent Nos 1 to 3. Neither a copy of the counter affidavit on behalf of respondent No.4 has been served on the petitioner, nor the same is on the record, although he entered appearence in the case through Vakalatnama dated 12-11-1986. However, from the impugned order it appears that the claim of respondent No.4 is that he had been permanently appointed to the post in question and that he could not be removed from service except by following the procedure and detail full dress enquiry afrer framing of the charge and having found guilty thereof. His further case appears to bj that he has been working from 26-5-1978 and was dismissed without any reason and without affording proper opportunity of being heard. 7. His further case appears to bj that he has been working from 26-5-1978 and was dismissed without any reason and without affording proper opportunity of being heard. 7. From the facts aforementioned there appears to be no dispute that although the petitioner was party in the so-called appeal preferred by respondent No.4, but was not given notice to the same and the impugned order was passed ex parte in which, besides setting aside the order of dismissal of respondent No.4 the Commissioner-respondent No 2 also dealt with the appointment of the petitioner behind his back. Thus, on these grounds alone, the impugned order is fit to be quashed. 8. Moreover. I am unable to appreciate as to how the Commissioner entertained the Misc case which was filed by respondent No.4 in the year 1983-84 against the order of his dismissal passed on 23-11-1979 Nothing has been stated in the impugned order regarding any explanation given by respondent No 4 for approaching the Commissioner against the order of his dismissal after lapse of about 4 years In such a situation also in my opinion, the Commissioner was not justified in interfering with the said order. However, as I find from the order of the Commissioner that as per Bihar chaukidar Mannual and Village Chhukidar Act, there is no provision of temporary appointment of Dafadar it is difficult to sustain the temporary appointment of the petitioner vide annexure 8 also. 9. Thus, in the peculiar facts and circumstances. I dispose of this writ application with the direction to the competent authority to make fresh appointment against the post in question within a period of two month from the date of receipt/production of copy of this judgment/order in accordance with law. However, in the peculiar facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.