IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7662 of 2009 SHEELA KUMARI, DAUGHTER OF SRI KRISHNA BALLABH PASWAN, AND WIFE OF SRI MANORANJAN PASWAN, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-BALIARI, P.O. KOSI, P.S.-ROH, DISTRICT- NAWADAH ………. ….. …. PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Secretary, Secondary, Primary and Adult Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 3. The District Magistrate/Collector, Nawadah. 4. The District Panchayat Raj Officer, Nawadah. 5. The District Superintendent of Education, Nawadah. 6. The Block Development Officer , Roh Block, P.S. Roh, Distt.-Nawadah. 7. The Block Education Extension Officer, Govindpur (Roh), P.S. Roh, Distt- Nawadah. 8. The Secretary, Kosirukhi Panchayat, P.S. Roh, Distt.- Nawadah. 9. The Mukhiya, Kosirukhi Panchayat, P.S. Roh, Distt.- Nawadah. 10. The Headmaster, Primary School, Harshitpur, Block/P.S.-Roh, Distt.- Nawadah. ………. ……… …….. Respondents. ----------- For the petitioner: Mr. Sidhendra Narayan Singh For the State: Mr. K. Ravish, A.C. to G.P.-I 2. 10.07.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing for the state. Petitioner has filed this application for quashing Memo No. 17 dated 30.09.2008 issued by the Block Development Officer , Roh cancelling appointment of petitioner and two others working as Panchayat teachers. Counsel for the petitioner submits that two other teachers, namely, Kavita Kumari and Guddi Rani whose appointments were cancelled by the impugned order, had earlier preferred C.W.J.C. No. 16914 of 2008 and C.W.J.C. No. 16954 of 2008. The impugned order contained in Memo No. 17 2 dated 30.09.2008 was quashed on the ground that Block Development Officer had no jurisdiction to pass such order after the amendment of Bihar Panchayat Primary Teachers (Appointment and Service Condition) Rules, 2006. Vide Notification No. 3153 dated 25.08.2008, now amended 2008 rules, the Bihar Tribunal constituted by the Stage Government is empowered under rule 18 to pass any order relating to the appointment or termination of the teachers. Considering this fact, the impugned order though earlier quashed, is again quashed so far it relates to the petitioner. Petitioner is also entitled for same relief as in the cases of Kavita Kumari and Guddi Rani, the direction has been issued. This petitioner will be deemed to be continuing on her post from the date of issuance of termination order and as such, is entitled for salary for all those period. Petitioner should be reinstated on her post. akv/ ( Mridula Mishra, J )