IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.681 of 2008 MANEESH KUMAR . Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS . ----------- 5 9.4.2010 Heard counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing for the State. This writ application was filed by the petitioner in the year 2008. Today when the matter is taken up, there is no counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State. Respondent no.7 refused to accept notice and accordingly, the service of notice is treated to be validly served. Prayer of the petitioner is for quashing of the order contained in letter no. 1634 dated 12.12.2007 issued by the District Magistrate, West Champaran, Bettiah, cancelling entire selection of Panchayat Teacher in Gram Panchayat Raj Baswaria Parau Tola. The District Magistrate vide order dated 12.12.2007 contained in Memo No. 1634 directed the Block Development Officer, Lauriya for cancelling the entire appointment and for initiating fresh process of selection. 2 Counsel for the petitioner submits that the report submitted by the Block Development Officer, Lauriya, on a complaint made by respondent no.7 indicates that the notice was properly issued to all respondents including respondent no.7 but on the date of counselling, he could not appear. Respondent no.7 or other candidates could not appear due to some mistake of the Postal Department. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is bad, for the reason that the District Magistrate has got no jurisdiction for issuing any direction regarding cancellation of appointment. He is not vested with any jurisdiction under Bihar Primary Panchayat Teachers (Appointment and Service condition) Rules, 2006. The competent authority under Rule 18 of 2006 Rules was the Block Development Officer. The Block Development Officer did not pass any order for cancellation of petitioner’s appointment, rather the Sub Divisional Education Officer, Bettiah, West Champaran in his report has indicated that due to some Postal Departments’ irregularity, notice could not 3 reach to the respondent no.7 and one more candidate, as such the could not participate in the counselling for appointment. Petitioner having higher marks among the participating candidates, was selected for appointment. There is nothing to show that any illegality was committed in the process of selection. The District Magistrate, ignoring the report cancelled, petitioner’s appointment. The order passed by the District Magistrate, West Champaran, Bettiah dated 12.12.2007 contained in letter No. 1634 is quashed. The consequential order issued by the Block Development Officer, Lauriya dated 26.12.2002 contained in Memo no. 724 is also quashed, being completely without jurisdiction and passed in violation of Rules of Natural Justice. Direction is issued to Respondent nos. 5 and 6 to reinstate the petitioner on his post with all consequential benefits within one week, from the date of production/communication of this order. (Mridula Mishra,J.) A.Kumar 4