IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6124 of 2009 MANOJ KUMAR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 2. 15.05.2009 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State. The petitioner was terminated from the post of Panchayat Teacher by an order dated 14.8.2007. He came to this Court in CWJC No. 15755 of 2007 assailing the same. On that date under Rule 18 of the Rules framed in 2006 regulating the appointment etc. the Block Development Officer was the statutory authority to deal with such issues. However writ petition was taken up for consideration on 2.9.2008. The 2006 rules were amended with effect from 25.8.2008. Under Clause 11 of the amended rules the Block Development Officer under Rule 18 was substituted by Appellate Authority. When CWJC No. 15755 of 2007 was taken up for consideration neither did the petitioner nor did the State point out that this legislative amendment had come in the meantime. Therefore this Court proceeded on the assumption that it was the Block Development Officer who was statutorily competent to deal with issues, remanded the matter to him. If the legislative mandate was there taking away the powers of the Block Development Officer on the date that the Court passed the order the parties by consent could not confer jurisdiction on an authority which the legislature had taken away. The order of this Court was passed silently when amended statutory provisions were not brought to its notice. However fact of the matter is that the Block Development Officer has ruled in favour of the petitioner. In that view of the matter, to bring the issue in accord with the legislative mandate the writ application is disposed with the following observations. If the petitioner files an application before the Appellate Authority it is required to decide the matter afresh within a period of four weeks. While taking such decision he is required to adequately consider and deal with the order of the Block Development Officer dated 31.12.2008. If the Appellate Authority proposes to differ with the same it is required to hear the petitioner and then pass a reasoned and speaking order pointing out the issues for difference of opinion so that judicial review by this Court of the order of the Appellate Authority is facilitated, if need arise. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)