IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.W.J.C. No.7270 of 2008 1. Dilip Kumar, son of Shri Satyendra Singh, resident of village Tarwa, P.O. Paduhar, P.S. Darihat, district Rohtas 2. Sri Bhagwan Sudhanshu, son of late Khalasi Singh, resident of village Ayar Kotha, P.S. Darihat, P.S. Darihar, district Rohtas .. Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. The Secretary-cum-Commissioner, Human Resources Development Department, Government of Bihar 3. The District Magistrate, Rohtas 4. The Deputy Development Commissioner, Rohtas 5. The Block Development Officer, Dehri-on-Sone, Rohtas 6. The District Education Officer, Rohtas 7. The District Superintendent of Education, Rohtas 8. The Block Education Extension Officer, Dehri-on-Sone, Rohtas 9. The Mukhiya, Majhiaon, Gram Panchayat, Dehri, Rohtas 10. The Panchayat Secretary, Majhiaon, Gram Panchayat, Dehri, Rohtas .. Respondents **** /2/ 10.02.2009 Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. Petitioners have filed this application for quashing the order, dated 29.03.2008, issued by the Panchayat Secretary, Majhiaon Gram Panchayat, Dehri, Rohtas, and also for a direction to reinstate them on the post of panchayat teacher. Counsel for the petitioners submits that after petitioners’ appointment, some complaints were received regarding the educational certificate of the petitioners. In this regard, enquiry should have been made giving an opportunity to show cause to the petitioners. But, without any opportunity 2 to show cause the Panchayat Secretary has issued the impugned order. The Panchayat Secretary has got no jurisdiction to cancel the appointment or issue termination order, once appointment is made, any such order could have been passed by the Block Development Officer only who is authorized under Rule 18 of 2006 to pass order relating to appointment/termination of service and service condition of panchayat teachers. In paragraph 30 of the writ application it is stated that the petitioners have filed an appeal against the impugned order, which is pending before the Block Development Officer. The petitioners have already preferred statutory appeal, as such, it is incumbent that the appellate auhority should pass order in accordance with law considering all legal aspects, which has been raised by the petitioners in this writ application as well as in the memo of appeal. Appeal must be decided by the Block Development Officer preferably within two months from the date of production/communication of this order. 3. With these observations and directions, this application is disposed off. Cp:2/S.A. ( Mridula Mishra, J. )