IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12369 of 2008 1.Lal Deo Ram, son of Sri Saraju Ram, resident of village Kaithin Kala, P.S. Dhansoi, District- Buxar 2.Sweta Kumari, daughter of Sri Raj Nath Ram, resident of village Kathain, P.S. Dhansoi, District- Buxar 3.Binita Kumari, wife of Sri Akhilesh Kumar Singh, resident of village+P.O. Sujayatpur, P.S. Dhansoi, District- Buxar 4.Sarita Kumari, daughter of Sri Satyendra Kumar Pandey, resident of village+P.O. Manikpur, P.S. Dhansoi, District- Buxar. …………… Petitioners Versus 1.The State Of Bihar 2.The Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Bihar, Patna 3.The District Magistrate, Buxar 4.The District Superintendent of Education, Buxar 5.The Block Development Officer, Rajpur, District- Buxar 6.The Block Education Extension Officer, Rajpur, District- Buxar 7.The Mukhiya of Gram Panchayat Kaitheher Kalan, P.S. Dhansoi, District- Buxar 8.The Panchayat Secretary of Gram Panchayat Kaitheher Kalan, P.S. Dhansoi, District- Buxar 9.The Selection Committee of Gram Panchayat Kaitheher Kalan, through the Panchayat Secretary of Gram Panchayat Kaitheher Kalon, P.S. Dhansoi, District- Buxar. …………… Respondents ---------------------------------- 2. 18/10/2011 Learned senior counsel for the petitioners submits that though the Block Development Officer had passed specific orders on 31.12.2007, while he was having powers under the Rules to entertain complaints and appeals, for appointment of petitioner nos.2, 3 and 4 along with others by cancelling appointment of illegally 2 appointed Panchayat Teachers, respondent nos.7, 8 and 9, i.e. Mukhiya, Panchayat Secretary and the Selection Committee of Gram Panchayat Kaitheher Kalan have not complied with the said order which has compelled the petitioners to move this Court. Writ application was filed on 19.8.2008 with service of two copies of the same in the office of the learned Advocate General. However, till today, no counter affidavit has been filed. Nothing has been brought on record to show that the said order of the Block Development Officer, who had exercised his powers in terms of unamended Rule 18 of 2006 Rules, has been set aside, rescinded or recalled subsequently. In the circumstances, the District Programme Officer is directed to verify as to whether the said order of the Block Development Officer is still in existence and in operation or not and as to whether the same has been challenged before any higher authority or any court or not. If he finds the same has not been done, he is 3 directed to see to it that the said order is complied with by respondent nos.7, 8 and 9 without any unnecessary delay. It is made clear that in case the order is in operation and not under challenge before any higher authority or any court, the same should be complied with, failing which the District Programme Officer shall be at liberty to take appropriate action against the Mukhiya, Panchayat Secretary and the Selection Committee in accordance with law. The writ application is disposed of with the above observations and directions. Pradeep/ ( J. N. Singh,J.)