IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2506 of 2008 Gulafshan Anjaum D/o Saiyad Mehadi Hasan, resident of mohalla Islam Nagar, Nawada, P.O. Nawada, P.S. Nawada, District Nawada … … Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR, 2. The District Magistrate, Nawada, 3. The District superintendentof Education, Nawada, 4. The Block Development Officer, Nawada, 5. The Block Education Extension Officer, Nawadah Block, Nawada, 6. The Panchayat Sachiv, Gram Pandhayat Raj Kena, P.S. Nawada, District Nawada, 7. Sri Yamuna Prasad son of late Chandrabhushan Prasad alias Chamari Yadav, resident of village Nirmal Bigha, P.S. Bhadhokhara, P.S. Mufassil, District Nawada, the Mukhia, Gram Panchayat Raj Kena, 8. Bindul Kumar wife of Jitendra Kumar, residentof mohalla Navin Nagar, P.S. Nawada, District Nawada, 9. District Teachers Employment Appellate Tribunal, Nawada, For the Petitioner: Mr. T.N. Maitin, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Sheo Kumar Prasad, Advocate For the State: Mr.Manoj Kumar Sinha, AC to GA 10, For Respondent No.8: M/s. B.N.P. Singh and Arjun Prasad No. 1, Advocates. ----------- 8 03.03.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the State as well as respondent no. 8. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that his appointment as Panchayat Teacher has been cancelled by the concerned Mukhiya on 22.03.2007. His representation was also rejected vide Annexure 16 by the respondent no. 4 and appeal filed under Rule 18 of the Bihar Panchayat 2 Prarambhik Shikshak (Niyojan Avam Seva Shart) Niyamavali, 2006 (as amended by Amendment Rules 2008) (hereinafter to be referred to as “the Rules”) has also been dismissed by the Appellate Tribunal by order as contained in Annexure 15. Thus, the petitioner seeks quashing of order dated 06.05.2009 passed by the District Teachers Appointment Appellate Authority, District Nawada, as contained in Annexure 15. However, by filing a supplementary affidavit, the petitioner now also wants to challenge the aforesaid order dated 26.08.2008 passed by the Block Development Officer, i.e. respondent no. 4 also. No objection has been raised in this regard. As a result, the petitioner is allowed to challenge the order aforesaid as contained in Annexure 16 appended with I.A. No. 1232 of 2010. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that both the orders, i.e. Annexure 15 passed by the respondent no. 9 and Annexure 16 dated 26.08.2008, passed by the respondent no. 4, have been passed during the pendency of the writ petition and during the pendency of the writ petition the petitioner had moved the Appellate Authority after its constitution in 2009. Learned counsel further submits that 3 the impugned order, as contained in Annexure 15 passed by the Appellate Authority, seems to have been passed only on the ground that since the Block Development Officer concerned, who was authorized to entertain the complaints in terms of Rule 18 of the Rules has already passed an order, the subsequent appeal before the Tribunal cannot be entertained, thus, the same has been dismissed. However, the District Superintendent of Education, Nawada, has been directed to pay the emoluments of the petitioner for the period she has worked. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that from the order, as contained in Annexure 16, it is apparent that the same has been passed on 26.08.2008 at the time when the new Rules after amendment came into existence and Rule 18 of the Rules has been substituted by the new Rule empowering the Appellate Tribunal to entertain the appeal against any dispute with regard to employment of the Panchayat Teacher with effect from 25.08.2008, thus, it is contended that after coming of the new Rules into existence as above, the Block Development Officer concerned on the date of passing of the order dated 26.08.2008 was not the competent officer to dispose of the complaint pending 4 before him. The proper course would have been that he should have forwarded the complaint to the Appellate Tribunal. It is further contended that it is apparent from the order passed by the Appellate Authority subsequently on the appeal having been preferred by the petitioner that it had dismissed the appeal only on the ground that on earlier occasion, a competent Authority had taken a decision, therefore, it would not be proper to entertain the appeal again. It is urged that the Appellate Tribunal had not formed any opinion and recorded any finding on the merit of the case. Learned counsel for the State as well as respondent no. 8 fairly admit that the Block Development Officer was not empowered to pass any order on 26.08.2008 as the new Rules by substituting the older one had already come into existence on 25.08.2008. However, it is submitted on behalf of respondent no. 8 that the Tribunal has also touched the merit of the case and decided the matter. On plain reading of the order, contained in Annexure 15, it appears that the Appellate Tribunal has only noticed what has been decided earlier by the Block Development Officer in the order dated 26.08.2008 but has 5 not considered the merit of the case and it has dismissed the same only on the ground that a competent authority had already exercised the power under old Rule 18, thus, a subsequent appeal under new Rule 18 cannot be entertained. However, at the same time, the Tribunal has also observed that the Mukhiya concerned had antedated the order of cancellation of appointment of the petitioner. In above view of the matter, Annexures 15 dated 06.05.2009 and Annexures 16 dated 26.08.2008, both, in the opinion of this Court, cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. Annexure 16 dated 06.05.2009 has to be quashed as it is the common ground that the Block Development Officer on the date of passing of the order was not empowered to pass the order dated 26.08.2008, and, thus, the same would be without jurisdiction. Accordingly, the same is quashed. Annexure 15 dated 06.05.2009 is also liable to be quashed on the ground that the appeal has not been decided on merit, rather the same has been dismissed only on the ground that earlier authority vide Annexure 16 has decided his complaint, which already stands quashed as above on having been passed without any jurisdiction. As a result, the order passed by the Appellate 6 Tribunal dated 06.05.2009, as contained in Annexure 15, is also quashed and set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Appellate Tribunal to hear the appeal afresh and decide it on its own merit in accordance with law within the time period prescribed in the Rules from the date of either receipt or production of a copy of this order. SC (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)