IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10972 of 2008 Nidhi Kumari, Daughter of Indrajeet Pathak, Resident of Village & P.O. Karanpur, P.S. Supaul, District Supaul…………………………….…………………………Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through the Commissioner- Cum-Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. The District Magistrate, Supaul. 3. The District Superintendent of Education, Supaul. 4. The Block Development Officer, Supaul, District Supaul. 5. The Block Education Extension Officer, Supaul, District Supaul. 6. The Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Raj, Ramdatt Patti, Block Supaul, District Supaul. 7. The Mukhia, Gram Panchayat Raj, Ramdatt Patti, Block Supaul, District Supaul…………………………………………………………………………….Respondents ---------------------------------- 2 20.09.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the State. In this writ application, petitioner has challenged the order of the District Magistrate, Supaul dated 25.02.2008, as contained in Annexure-8, by which appointments of the petitioner as well as some other Panchayat Teachers have been cancelled. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that under 2006 Rules, District Magistrate has not been given any authority to interfere in 2 the matter of appointment of Panchayat Teachers or taking any disciplinary action against them including cancellation of appointment. He submits that under the Rules it is the employment agency at the Panchayat level which is the authority to make appointment of Panchayat Teachers and any complaint with regard to illegality committed had to be filed before the Block Development Officer before 2008 Amendment in the Rules who could only entertain the same and pass order for cancellation of appointment, if necessary. Hence, he submits that District Magistrate has acted without jurisdiction. Learned counsel for the respondents does not deny that under the Rules, District Magistrate has no power. In the circumstances, the impugned order of the District Magistrate, as contained in Annexure-8 is quashed. If the district authorities are of the view that the matter requires further enquiry, they will be at liberty to refer the matter to the newly constituted Appellate Authority as per 2008 Amendment in the Rules for 3 consideration and enquiry and for appropriate orders. The writ application is allowed with the aforesaid liberty to the respondents. BT (J. N. Singh, J.)