IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13977 of 2008 RAJESH KUMAR, Son of Hardeo Lal Agrawal, resident of village-Kako, P.O.-Kako, P.S.-Kako, District-Jehenabad. ……….Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Commissioner-Cum-Secertary, Human Resources Development Department, Government of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna. 3. The District Magistrate-Cum-Collector, Jehanabad. 4. The District Superintendent-Cum-District Programme Co-Ordinator, Sarva Shiksha Abhiyaan, Jehanabad. 5. The Block Education Extension Officer, Kako, Jehanabad. 6. The Block Development Officer, Kako, Jehanabad. 7. The Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat West Kako, Jehanabad. ………..Respondents. ----------- For the petitioner : Mr. N.K. Aggarwal (Sr. Adv.) Mr. Parul Ranjan, Adv. For the Respondents: Mr. Bijay Kumar Pandey, AC to GP.-18. 3/ 22.04.2010 Heard counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing for the State. Petitioner has challenged his illegal termination from the post of Prakhand Teacher. Initially, he was appointed as Panchayat Shiksha Mitra vide order contained in Memo No. 1 dated 15.02.2006 issued by the Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat West Kako and joined at Rajkiya Madhya Vidyalaya, Kako. Petitioner’s case is that his appointment was duly approved by the Sukh Suvidha Committee and the Panchayat Executive, who were competent authority in the matters of Panchayat Shiksha Mitras, as per the guidelines relating to appointment of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra. Subsequently, after coming into force of Bihar Panchayat Teachers (Appointment and Service Condition) Rules. 2006, petitioner was absorbed on the post of Panchayat Teacher as provided under Rule 20 (iii) of 2006 - 2 - Rules. Some complaints were filed against the appointment of the petitioner as Panchayat Shiksha Mitra. A Committee was constituted to conduct an enquiry and that Committee submitted its report on 31.03.2008. In this report there was nothing adverse against the appointment of the petitioner. However, on 16.06.2008 he was served with a notice dated 13.06.2008 contained in Memo No. 1745, whereby he was asked to appear before the District Magistrate. The District Magistrate passed an order on 31.03.2008 without considering the report submitted by the Three Member Nodal Committee, constituted to enquire into the matter. The District Magistrate issued orders, cancelling the appointment of the petitioner. In compliance of the order passed by the District Magistrate, Mukhiya issued consequential order contained in Letter No. 1 dated 16.07.2008, cancelling the appointment of the petitioner. Petitioner has prayed for quashing of orders passed by the Collector as well as the Mukhiya. The order passed by the District Magistrate has been challenged on the ground that it is without jurisdiction. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra in the year 2005, till date, no complaints were made against his appointment. Subsequently, in the year 2007 some complaints were made. It should not have been entertained being time barred. It has also been submitted that after petitioner’s absorption on the post of - 3 - Panchayat Teacher, in the matters of his appointment any order could have been passed by the Block Development Officer, as provided under Rule 18 of 2006 Rules. Further, it has been submitted that the Committee, constituted to enquire into the matter, had given clean-cheat to the appointment of petitioner but illegally the impugned order was passed. In the counter affidavit filed by respondent Nos. 3 and 4, it is stated that in course of enquiry by the District Magistrate, it was found that ignoring the suitable candidates, having higher merit, the petitioner was appointed. It is also stated that since, the complaint was received relating to petitioner’s appointment as Panchayat Shiksha Mitra, as such, the District Magistrate was well within his jurisdiction to pass such orders. The counsel appearing for State has also placed reliance on a letter issued by the Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department dated 20.02.2009 contained in Memo No. 254, where it is stated that the pending matters relating to Panchayat Shiksha Mitra shall be disposed of by the District Magistrate. This letter has no application in the present case as till 1.7.2006 no complaint was filed against petitioner’s appointment, which remain pending before the District Magistrate. The appointment of the petitioner as Panchayat Shiksha Mitra was challenged for the first time in the year 2007 by that thime post of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra became non-existent with effect from 01.07.2006. Prior to 01.07.2006 no complaint was filed before the District Magistrate as such subsequent complaint cannot be - 4 - treated as a pending matter, in order to give jurisdiction to the District Magistrate. At the time, complaint was received under 2006 Rule, jurisdiction was vested in the Block Development Officer, In this circumstance, the order was passed by an authority, having no jurisdiction. These are the reasons for holding that the impugned order passed by the District Magistrate was illegal and without jurisdiction. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 16.06.2008 passed by the District Magistrate and the order dated 16.07.2008 issued by the Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Raj Kako, cancelling the appointment of the petitioner as Panchayat Shiksha Mitra and consequence to that, cancelling his absorption on the post of Prakhand Teacher, is quashed. This application is allowed. The Block Education Extension Officer, and the Mukhiya, West Kako, Jehanabad are directed to re-instate the petitioner on his post and allow him to discharge his duties, with full consequential benefits. Sanjeet/ (Mridula Mishra, J.)