ORDER Amareshwar Sahay, J. 1. Heard the parties. 2. The prayer of the petitioner is for quashing the order dated 03.10.2001, as contained in Annexure 10 and the letter dated 19.02.2001 as contained in Annexure-11, to the writ application whereby the petitioner has been removed from the Service. 3. The case of the petitioner is that pursuant to an advertisement issued by the respondents, he applied for being appointed to the post of Junior Engineer in Madhupur Municipality and ultimately on being selected by the Selection Committee duly constituted for the said purpose, his name was sent for approval to the Government alongwith the recommendation of the Selection Committee and till the Government approves his appointment, he was appointed as Junior Engineer on daily wage basis. 4. The further case of the petitioner is that his appointment was made after fulfilling all the due procedure for appointment and his appointment was approved by the Municipal Board and, therefore, there was no occasion to seek any direction from the Department of Urban Development. It has been alleged by the petitioner that the respondent No. 4 terminated his service by order dated 03.10.2001 on the ground that the Selection Committee was not constituted properly as there was no specialist in the said Selection Committee. The petitioner made a representation thereafter and then the Sub-Divisional Officer was directed to make inquiry and report. It is said that the Sub-Divisional Officer by letter dated 24.12.2001 found that there was no illegality in the appointment of the petitioner and it was done in accordance with law. After the receipt of the report of the Sub-Divisional Officer, the respondent No. 4 i.e. the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar sought for a direction and guidance from the Government regarding reappointment of the petitioner. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that there was no need for respondent No. 4, the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar to seek direction/guidance regarding reappointment of the petitioner rather on the basis of the Enquiry Report of the Sub-Divisional Officer dated 30.01.2002, he should have withdrawn the order of termination from the service of the petitioner. 5. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that there was no need for respondent No. 4, the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar to seek direction/guidance regarding reappointment of the petitioner rather on the basis of the Enquiry Report of the Sub-Divisional Officer dated 30.01.2002, he should have withdrawn the order of termination from the service of the petitioner. 5. On the other hand, from the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it appears that since there were two contradictory Enquiry Reports by the Sub-Divisional Officer, one dated 11.08.2001, wherein it was stated that the appointment of the petitioner made on daily wage was illegal and the other dated 24.12.2001, wherein it was stated that the appointment was valid and, therefore, the respondent No. 4 has rightly sought for a direction from the Urban Development Department, Government of Jharkhand Ranchi as contained in Annexure-14 to the writ application. 6. After hearing the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, in my view since the matter is already pending before the Urban Development Department, Government of Jharkhand, it is not desirable to pass any order in this writ application either this way or that way and, therefore, this application is being disposed of with a direction to the respondent No. 2, Secretary of the Department of Urban Development, Government of Jharkhand, to examine the entire matter regarding the appointment of the petitioner, pursuant to the letter sent by the Deputy Commissioner, dated 30.01.2002 as contained in Annexure-14 and to take a decision in the matter within a period of 8 weeks from the date or receipt/production of a copy of this order and communicate its decision to the petitioner immediately thereafter. 7. With this observation and direction, this application is disposed of.