IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3535 of 2009 DURGESH SINGH, SON OF SRI RAM PARIKHA SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE – CHAKANI, POLICE STATION – SIMARI, DISTRICT – BUXAR. ….. PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. DISTRICT OFFICER, BUXAR. 3. DISTRICT PANCHAYAT RAJ OFFICER, BUXAR. 4. DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, BUXAR. 5. DEPUTY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER, BUXAR. 6. DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, BUXAR. 7. SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER, DUMRAON, DISTRICT – BUXAR. 8. BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, CHOUNGAI, POLICE STATION – MURAR, DISTRICT – BUXAR. 9. BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER, CHOUNGAI AT DUMRAON, DISTRICT – BUXAR. ………… RESPONDENTS. ----------- 03/ 08.04.2010 Petitioner has filed writ application for quashing of the order dated 6.3.2007 passed by the District Magistrate, Buxar contained in Memo No. 323 dated 7.3.2007. By this order appointment of petitioner and similarly situated other persons have been cancelled. I.A. No. 2893 of 2010 has been filed for staying the operation of order dated 6.3.2007 passed by the District Magistrate, Buxar. Along with interlocutory application the petitioner has annexed an order dated 9.4.2009 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 4427 of 2009 (Seema Gupta Vs. The State of Bihar & ORS). In this writ application the same impugned order was under challenge. It has been stated by the petitioner in - 2 - the present writ application that the order 6.3.2007 was quashed on the ground that without any notice to the petitioner an ex-parte order was passed. It was also quashed on the ground that it is completely without jurisdiction, since under Rule 18 of Bihar Panchayat Primary Teachers (Appointment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2006, the Block Development Officer is the statutory authority to decide the issue of appointment, transfer and service conditions of Panchayat teacher. An order passed by any authority other than the statutory authority has no sanctity, in law. On these grounds the impugned order had been quashed, holding the order without jurisdiction and violative of rule of natural justice. Grounds on which, impugned order was quashed, only indicated that it is illegal and its application would in the matters of all such persons, whose appointments have been cancelled vide order dated 6.3.2007 passed by the District Magistrate, Buxar. There was no reason for the respondent- authorities to ask each and every one, including the petitioner for fetching an order in their favour from the High Court, in order to give them similar relief. - 3 - The order, which has already been quashed in C.W.J.C. No. 4427 of 2009 needs no further quashing, but the benefit, which has been allowed to the petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 4427 of 2009 is also being allowed to the petitioner. The termination order issued in favour of the petitioner is also quashed. This writ application is allowed. DKS/ (Mridula Mishra, J.)