IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC NO.7700 OF 2009 ANPURNA KUMARI . VERSUS THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS WITH CR. MISC. NO. 7651 OF 2009 ANJU DEVI & ANR VERSUS THE STATE OF BIAHR & ANR. ----------- 05. 20.06.2011 Let Cr. Misc. No. 7651 of 2009, which relates to quashing of the order of cognizance be heard separately by the appropriate Bench, after seeking permission of Hon'ble the Chief Justice. No Counter Affidavit has been filed in the Writ Application either by the State or by the Panchayat Secretary and the Mukhiya, Respondent No. 8 and 9, respectively. Petitioner’s prayer is for quashing of the order, contained in letter no. 15-67/7/697, dated 12.04.2007, issued by the District Magistrate, Madhubani and also the letter dated, 12.04.2007, issued by the Block Development Officer, Pandaul. She has also prayed for quashing of letter, dated 07.05.2007, issued under the signature of District Programme Officer, communicating the order passed by the District Magistrate, Madhubani and the Block Development Officer, Pandaul, regarding cancellation 2 of appointment of the petitioner on the post of Panchayat Teacher. Petitioner also claims for a direction to the District Magistrate, Madhubani as well as the Block Development Officer, Pandaul to reinstate her on the post of Panchayat Teacher and to make payment of salary. Petitioner’s case is that in response to the advertisement, dated 10.08.2006, she applied for the post of Panchayat Teacher. Merit list was published on 14.02.2007 and petitioner’s name was at serial no. 12. She participated in counseling, held in between 24.02.2007 to 26.02.2007, having highest marks amongst the candidates, who appeared in the interview. She was duly selected for the post of Panchayat Teacher. Appointment letter was issued and the petitioner joined in Primary School, Shakmi Meshhar under the district of Madhubani on 01.03.2007 and the petitioner was continuing as Panchayat Teacher in the concerned School. One Rina Kumari, whose name has figured at serial no. 20 in the merit list, raised objection against the appointment of the petitioner. An ex- parte enquiry was conducted by the District Magistrate and in absence of the petitioner, her 3 appointment was cancelled. The District Magistrate, Madhubani issued letter to the Block Development Officer and the Block Development Officer, communicated the enquiry report and the decision of the District Magistrate, Madhubani regarding cancellation of petitioner’s appointment to the Block Education Extension Officer. In pursuance of the direction of the District Magistrate, B.E.D. cancelled petitioner’s appointment, even without giving any opportunity to show-cause. The petitioner when communicated with the order of Block Education Extension Officer and the District Magistrate, filed her objection before Deputy Director, Higher Education and the objection of the petitioner was considered and finally a direction was issued for reinstating the petitioner, holding that there was no irregularity or illegality in the appointment. Petitioner is aggrieved, as despite the specific direction, issued by the Deputy Director, Higher Education, still she has not been allowed to give her joining at her post. She has not been reinstated and because of this, not getting any salary. Counsel, appearing on behalf of petitioner, submits that the District Magistrate has no 4 jurisdiction to cancel any appointment of Panchayat Teacher under the provisions of the Bihar Panchayat Primary Teachers’ (Appointment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2006. In the initial stage, it was the BDO, who has got jurisdiction to enquire into the matters of complaint regarding the appointment. Subsequently, the jurisdiction has been transferred to the Tribunal. At no stage, the District Magistrate was empowered either to issue direction for appointment or for cancellation the appointment. No Counter Affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State. The Mukhiya and Panchayat Secretary, despite proper service report, have also not entered appearance. Considering the fact that under the Rules, as provider under Bihar Panchayat Primary Teachers’ (Appointment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2006, the District Magistrate has not been empowered or provided with any jurisdiction either to enquire the dispute relating to Panchayat Teacher’s appointment or to direct appointment or to cancel any appointment, made by the competent authority. In that view of the matter, the orders, impugned, contained in letter dated 12.04.2007 and order, 5 issued by the District Magistrate, Madhubani as well as order, issued under the signature of Block Development Officer, Pandaul, dated 07.05.2007, communicating the cancellation of appointment of the petitioner, are completely illegal, without jurisdiction as such, fit to be quashed. All three letters, i.e., letter, dated 12.04.2007, 07.05.2007 and 13.04.2007 (Annexure-1 series) are quashed. The Respondent, Mukhiya of concerned Gram Panchayat, the Block Education Extension Officer and the District Superintendent of Education, Madhubani are directed to reinstate the petitioner with effect from the date her appointment was cancelled. She must be allowed to discharge her duties. Respondents are also directed to make payment of salary to the petitioner for the period, she was not allowed to work, on account of impugned illegal orders. Reinstatement of the petitioner will be with all consequential benefits. With aforesaid observations, this application is allowed. SKM (Mridula Mishra, J.)