IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10232 of 2008 Nikhil Kumar, S/o Sri Anil Kumar Singh, Village + P.O. Diha, P.S. Guraru, District Gaya…Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. The Secretary – cum - Commissioner, Human Resources Development Department, Bihar, Patna. 3. The District Magistrate, Kaimur. 4. The Additional Collector, Kaimur (Bhabhua). 5. The District Superintendent of Education-Cum- Sub-Divisional Education Officer, Bhabhua, Kaimur. 6. The Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Mahuat, Kaimur (Bhabhua) 7. The Secretary, Gram Panchayat - Mahuat, Kaimur (Bhabhua)…………………………………..…………Respondents --------------- For Petitioner: Mr. Rajedra Prasad Singh, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rakesh Kumar Singh, Advocate. For State: Mr. Rishi Raj Sinha, G.P. 19 with Mrs. Archana Prasad, A.C. to G.P. 19. 2 06.09.2011 Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the State. In this writ application, petitioner has challenged an order of the District Superintendent of Education – cum - Sub- Divisional Education Officer, Bhabhua dated 26.09.2007, as contained in Annexure-1, by which he has cancelled appointments of Panchayat Teachers in the Panchayat in view of illegality committed in the selection process. He has also challenged the consequential order of the Secretary of the Employment Unit cancelling his appointment. 2 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that under the Rules, District Superintendent of Education has no authority to examine the validity of selection process held for appointment of Panchayat Teachers and interfere with the same. He submits that under 2006 Rules, it was the Block Development Officer with whom a complaint could be filed and who could enquire into the matter and after amendment in Rules in 2008, it is the statutory Appellate Authority constituted in the district which can look into the grievances in respect of employment or otherwise of Panchayat Teachers. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that on enquiry, it was found that illegality had been committed in selection process and hence appointments were cancelled. However, she could not point out any provision to show that District Superintendent of Education had any authority under the Rules to cancel appointments of Panchayat Teachers made through a selection process held by the Employment Unit in the Panchayat. In the circumstances, the impugned 3 order of the District Superintendent of Education and consequential order of the Secretary of the Employment Unit as contained in Annexure-1 series are quashed. Respondents are directed to transmit the reports of the enquiry officer and all connected records to the Appellate Authority within four weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. On receipt of the records, the Appellate Authority shall issue notice to the concerned parties giving them opportunity to be heard, call for the original records, if necessary, and decide the matter in accordance with law on merits positively within three months on receipt of the records from the office of the District Superintendent of Education and/or Government authorities. Till the Appellate Authority decides the matter, as directed by this order, petitioner shall not be entitled to resume his duties and shall not be entitled for payment of his salary. BT (J. N. Singh, J.)