IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9828 of 2009 PREM KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA s/o Shri Chadeshwar Prasad resident of Village-Sudama nager, P.O. Bathna P.S Bairiya, Dist.-West Champaran Bettiah …………………Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. The Commissioner -cum-Secretary Depart. Of Human Resources Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Director, Primary Education Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 4. The Dist. Magistrate, Bettiah, West Champaran. 5. The Dist. Supertintendent of Education, Bettiah West Champaran. 6. The Sub-Divisional Education officer Bettiah West Champaran. 7. The Block Development Officer Bairiya, West Champaran. Bettiah. 8. The Block Education Extension Officer Bariya. West Champaran, Bettiah. 9. The Mukhia. Gram Panchayat Bagahi Ratanpur. bettiah, West Champaran. 10. The Panchayt Secretary Gram panchayat bagahi. Ratanpura West Champaran, Bettiah. 11. The Head Master, Primary School Baia Tola, Bagahi, Ratanpur block, bairiya, Dist west Champaran, Bettiah. 12. Sanjeev Kumar Verma s/o Kumar Verma S/o Bipin Bihari Verma, Resident of Village Motihari Dih P.S. Bairiya Dist West Champaran Bettiah. ……..Respondent. ----------- 3. 5.10.2010 This writ application was listed under the heading “For Orders on Petition” on I.A No. 3039 of 2010 filed by respondent No. 12 for vacating the stay order passed by this Court on 1.9.2009. However, with the agreement of the parties, the writ application is taken up on merits and is being disposed of. The contention of the respondents is 2 that, in terms of the order passed by this Court in C.W.J.C No. 1018 of 2008 dated 6.3.2009, the Block Development Officer exercised powers, held enquiry and gave his finding in favour of the correctness of appointment of the respondent no.12. The complete order passed by the Block Development Officer was suppressed by the petitioner and by just annexing part of the order, he got the order of stay. From the order of this Court recorded on 1.9.2009, it appears that petitioner had raised pure question of jurisdiction of the Block Development Officer in holding inquiry in the matter in terms of Rule 18 of 2006 Rules, when the Rules stood amended with effect from 25.8.2008 and the Block Development Officer was already divested of powers as per old Rule 18. The order of this Court dated 6.3.2009 shows that while quashing the orders of appointment, this Court had given liberty to the „competent authority‟ to conduct enquiry and proceed in accordance with law complying with the principles of natural justice. As on the date of order passed by this Court, the Block 3 Development Officer had no power under the Rules to hold enquiry, entertain any complaints and pass any orders in respect of engagement of Panchayat Teachers. As per amendment introduced in 2006 Rules by 2008 amendment, original Rule 18 stands substituted and the Block Development Officer stands divested of that power in the matter. Now the power vests with the District Employment Appellate Authority which alone is the „competent authority‟ to hold inquiry and pass any order in terms of the order of this Court dated 6.3.2009. Therefore, the impugned order of the Block Development Officer, as contained in Annexure-8, is wholly without jurisdiction and the same is quashed. The parties, if advised, may approach the District Employment Appellate Authority to ventilate their grievances. The writ application is disposed of. Prakash/Pradeep ( J.N.Singh, J.)