IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.323 of 2010 1. GEETA MOHAN W/O SRI CHANDRAMA PRASAD, D/O LATE SHYAM LAL RAM R/O VILL- REWATIA, P.S. MURAR, DISTT. BUXAR Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE DISTRICT OFFICER CUM DISTRICT MAGISTRATE BUXAR 3. THE DISTRICT PANCHAYAT RAJ OFFICER BUXAR 4. THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER BUXAR 5. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION OFFICER BUXAR 6. THE DEPUTY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER BUXAR 7. SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER DUMRAON, BUXAR 8. BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER CHOUNGAI, P.S. MURAR, DISTT. BUXAR 9. BLOCK EDUCATION EXTENSION OFFICER CHOUNGAI, P.S. MURAR, DISTT. BUXAR ----------- 02/ 10.05.2010 Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel appearing for the State. Prayer of the petitioner is for quashing of the order dated 6.3.2007 passed by the District Magistrate, Buxar contained in Memo No. 323 dated 7.3.2007, whereby the appointment of the petitioner as Panchayat teacher of Nachap Gram Panchayat has been cancelled. Counsel for the petitioner submits that by the same impugned order appointment of petitioner and others and one Seema Gupta had also been cancelled. Seema Gupta had approached before this Court by filing CWJC No. 4427 of 2009 for quashing of the order dated 6.3.2007 on the ground that the impugned order passed by the District Magistrate is completely without jurisdiction under Rule 18 - 2 - of the Bihar Panchayat Primary Teachers (Appointment and Services Conditions) Rules, 2006. Under Rule 18 the Block Development Officer was the competent authority for passing any order relating to the appointment/termination of service conditions of the Panchayat teacher. The District Magistrate has not been vested with any such power under 2006 Rules. It is also submitted that without issuing any notice to the petitioner an ex-parte proceeding, the impugned order has been quashed. The impugned order was quashed in CWJC No. 4427 of 2009 and a direction has been issued for reinstatement of petitioner with all consequential benefits. Counsel for the petitioner submits that she is also entitled for similar relief. Considering the fact District Magistrate has passed an ex-parte order without issuing notice to the petitioner and it is in violation of the provision under Rule 18 of the 2006 Rules. The impugned order dated 6.3.2007 contained in Memo No.323 dated 7.3.2007 is quashed. This application is allowed. The petitioner is directed to be reinstated with all consequential benefits. DKS/ (Mridula Mishra, J.)