IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5831 of 2010 1. VINAY KUMAR S/O SHRI MUNESHWAR RAI R/O VILL NARAYANPUR, P.O.RATAMPUR, P.S.GURKHA,DISTT-SARAN 2. SHASHIKANT S/O SHRI VIDHYANAND SINGH R/O VILL +P.O. MAHAMADPUR, P.S.GURKHA, DISTT-SARAN 3. SHILLU KUMARI D/O SHRI AMUL RATAN SHARMA AT+P.O.+P.S. GURKHA, DISTT-SARAN 4. RINKI KUMARI D/O SHRI BHUSHAN PRASAD R/O VILL +P.O.JALALPUR, BASANT, P.S.GORKHA,DISTT-SARAN 5. RAM PRATAP SINGH S/O SHRI GOVINDA SINGH R/O VILL SISOUNI, P.O. FURSHATPUR, P.S.DERNI, DISTT-SARAN 6. PRATAPI RAN VIJAY S/O LATE PRITHVI RAJ ROY R/O VILL BANGARI, P.O.BASANT, P.S.GARKHA, DISTT-SARAN. VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE SARAN AT CHAPRA 3. THE DEPUTY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER SARAN AT CHAPRA 4. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER GARKHA , P.O.+P.S.GARKHA, DISTT-SARAN AT CHAPRA 5. THE MUKHIYA GRAM PANCHAYATI RAJ JALAL BASANT, P.O.GARKHA, DISTT-SARAN AT CHAPRA 6. THE PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ JALAL BASANT , P.O.BASANT, P.S.GARKHA, DISTT-SARAN AT CHAPRA ----------- 03 17.09.2010 The petitioners challenge the order of the Block Development Officer, Garkha, District Saran, being communicated to them under Memo No. 613 dated 27.08.2008 (Annexure-3). By the said order, the Block Development Officer pursuant to directions issued by the D.D.C., Saran at Chapra under his Memo No. 583 dated 20.08.2008 (Annexure-2) has cancelled the appointment of petitioners as Panchyat Teachers. It is not in dispute that the petitioners selected and appointment as Panchyat Teachers in the year 2006 under the Bihar Primary Panchyat Teacher (Appointment and Service Condition) - 2 - Rules, 2006. It appears that one Madhuri Kumari made a complaint before the D.D.C., Chapra alleging irregularity in the selection process as was done in the year 2006. The D.D.C. enquired into the matter and by order as contained in memo no. 295 dated 1st August 2008 directed the Block Development Officer to cancel the appointments and get fresh appointments made under his supervision. It is pursuant to this direction that the impugned order has been passed by the Block Development Officer and enacted under Memo No.613 dated 27.08.2008. Learned counsel for the petitioners makes three submissions for challenging the action and the orders. Firstly, he submits that D.D.C. had no authority to entertain any such complaint. He submits that a right decision by a wrong forum is no decision. The authority is specified in Rule 18 of the Rules aforesaid and as such interference and direction of the D.D.C. is fully without jurisdiction. Secondly, it is submitted that the competent authority in terms of Rule 18 is the B.D.O. but he has to exercise his powers independently and not at the dictate of another reliance has been placed for this on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of The Purtabpur Company Ltd.Vs.Cane Commissioner of Bihar and others since reported in AIR 1970 Supreme Court 1896. Thirdly, it is submitted that even if there were grounds to cancel the appointments the same could not have been done ex parte without notice to the petitioners. The order is, thus, void ab initio. Having considered the matter, in my view, the writ - 3 - petitioner must be allowed at this stage itself and the impugned orders have to be set aside on all three grounds as raised by the petitioners. Firstly, a bare reference to Rule 18 of the 2006 Rules would show that initially it was the Block Development Officer who has the authority to pass orders. There are no appeal or revision provided to any authority. Thus the order of the B.D.O. is the final order which cannot be interfered by any person and/or authority, however, senior he may be in the administrative hierarchy. To the contrary, the D.D.C. does not figure anywhere in this and as such has no authority to interfere in these matters much less issue any direction to the B.D.O in this regard. Learned counsel for the petitioner is correct in submitting that even if the order of D.D.C. might be correct, it has no legal force as it may be right order but emanating from wrong source. Thus, the order of the D.D.C. has to be ignored. Coming to the second issue of the order of the B.D.O. No doubt the B.D.O. is authorized person to pass such order under Rule 18 of Rules he has to pass order on his own and not at the dictates of superior. It is well established even a request by a superior to interfere is a direction and cannot be ignored. A reference to the order of the B.D.O. itself would show that B.D.O. has merely followed the directions of the D.D.C. and cancelled the appointments as were made in the year 2006, if any authority as required. It is the case of Purtabpur Company Ltd. (supra) which is a complete answer. Lastly, all persons exercising these powers forgot the basic principles of natural justice. They forgot that they were dealing with valuable rights - 4 - of petitioners. The petitioners were not even made party to the proceedings nor issued notice nor heard. Thus, the order was in cross and thus void ab initio violation of principle of natural justice have been issued in view of the aforesaid writ application is allowed the impugned Annexures 2 & 3 are quashed. This order would however not operate if pursuant to the cancellation of petitioner’s appointment new selection process has already been undertaken to fill up the vacancy show caused and pursuant thereto any appointments having been made. Trivedi/ (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)