Judgment Chandramauli Kr.Prasad, J. 1. This application has been filed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 14.9.2000 (Annexure-1) passed by the Administrator of the Patna Municipal Corporation whereby respondent no. 4 has been conferred with the benefits of the post of Miscellaneous License Inspector from 1.4.1985. Further prayer made is to quash the consequential order dated, 4.1.2001, whereby direction has been issued for payment of salary to that post. 2. Facts, necessary for decision of the present application, are that service of respondent no. 4 Ram Yatan Prasad was regularised as Miscellaneous License Inspector by memo dated 15.6.1995. His grievance was that persons junior to him were given promotion as such with effect from 1.4.1985 whereas he was so promoted from a later date. Aggrieved by the same respondent no. 4 preferred CWJC No. 10655 of 1994 before this Court. This Court by order dated 21.8.1995 disposed of the writ application giving liberty to respondent no. 4 to file representation for the redressal of his grievance. Respondent no. 4 thereafter filed representation and making a grievance that the said representation has not yet been disposed of, preferred CWJC No. 2075 of 1997 (Ram Yatan Prasad V/s. The Administrator, Patna Municipal Corporation and others) before this Court and the said writ application was disposed of by order dated 15.4.1998 with the following direction : "In that view of the matter, this court directs the Administrator, Patna Municipal Corporation, Patna (respondent no. 1) to dispose of the aforesaid representation filed by the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of service of a copy of this order upon the said respondent." 3. In the light of the afrosaid order of this Court, the respresention of rspondent no.4 has been disposed of and by the impugned order he has been conferred with the benefit on the post of Miscellaneous License inspector with effect from 1.4.1985. 4. Petitioner contending that the aforesaid order shall have bearing on his seniority, has preferred this application and prayed for quashing of the said order. 4. Petitioner contending that the aforesaid order shall have bearing on his seniority, has preferred this application and prayed for quashing of the said order. In paragraph 12 of the writ application petitioner has averred as follows : "That at this stage it is relevant to state here that the then Administrator of the Corporation Sri A.K. Srivastava was transferred on 1.9.2000 and posted as District Magistrate, Madhepura and on 4.9.2000 he was relieved from the Corporation. Shri A.K. Shrivastava joined as District Magistrate, Madhepura on 5.9.2000. The impugned order of promotion was passed on 14.9.2000 when Sri A.K. Shrivastava was working as District Magistrate, Madhepura. In fact, the impugned order was passed back dated in arbitrary and malafide manner to favour respondent no. 4." 5. When the matter was taken up on 15.5.2001, at the request of counsel for the Patna Municipal Corporation, eight weeks time was granted to file the counter affidavit. Thereafter the matter was taken up on 16.7.2001 and at the request of counsel for the Corporation, three weeks time was further granted. But till date no counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Corporation. 6. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent no. 4 and in paragraph 4 thereof it has been stated as follows : "That the statements made in paragraphs 12 and 13 of the writ application are false and they are denied however it specially to be replied by respondent nos. 1 to 3." 7. Mr. Sunil Kr. Singh appearing on behalf of the petitioner raises a very short point. He submits that the order has been Passed by a Person who was not the Administrator on the relevant date. Learned counsel representing the respondents, however, submits that same will not vitiate the order. 8. On consideration of the rival submission, I do not find any force in the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents. Averment of the petitioner that the order has been passed by Sri A.K. Srivastava after he was relieved from the post of Administrator of the Corporation and joined as District Magistrate, Madhepura has not been replied by the Corporation. Reply of respondent no. 4 in this connection is simply denial without giving any detail. Petitioner was given the details when the Administrator was relieved and the date on which he had joined as District Magistrate, Madhepura. Reply of respondent no. 4 in this connection is simply denial without giving any detail. Petitioner was given the details when the Administrator was relieved and the date on which he had joined as District Magistrate, Madhepura. According to him the Administrator was relieved on 4.9.2000 and joined as the District Magistrate, Madhepura on 5.9.2O00 whereas the impugned order has been passed on 14th September, 2000. There is nothing on record to discredit the plea of the petitioner. Thus the representation of respondent no. 4 has been decided by the person who on the relevant date was not the Administrator. This renders the order impugned non-est in the eye of law and has to be set aside on that ground alone. 9. To put the record straight, it is relevant here to state that learned counsel for the petitioner as also respondent no.4 attempted to address on the merits of the case but having found that the order has been passed by a person who was not the Administrator on the date when the impugned order was passed, I am not inclined to enter into the merit of those submissions. 10. Accordingly the impugned order dated 14th September, 2000 (Annexure-1) as also the consequential order dated 4th of January, 2001 are set aside. The repondent Corporation shall consider the representation of respondent no. 4 in accordance with law. As shifting of date of promotion may affect other employees of the Corporation, the Corporation before passing the order shall hear such persons also. The Corportion shall dispose of the representation of respondent no. 4 within three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 11. It is made clear that I have not expressed any opinion in regard to the merit of the matter raised by the parties. 12. Writ application stands allowed in the aforesaid terms. No cost.