IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14118 of 2009 1. MAHENDRA RAI S/O SHRI SONE LAL RAI VILL-MAHUA SINGH RAI, P.S- MAHUA, DISTT- VAISHALI Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE COMMISSIONER-CUM- SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, NEW SECRETARIAT, BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF PRIMARY EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, NEW SECRETARIAT, BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER VAISHALI 4. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION VAISHALI 5. THE SUB-DIVISIONAL EDUCATION OFFICER MAHUA, VAISHALI 6. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER MAHUA, VAISHALI 7. THE BLOCK EDUCATION EXTENTION OFFICER MAHUA, VAISHALI 8. THE PANCHAYAT SECRETARY GRAM PANCHAYAT, MAHUA SINGH RAI, BLOCK- MAHUA, VAISHALI 9. THE MUKHIYA GRAM PANCHAYAT MAHUA SINGH RAI, BLOCK MAHUA, VAISHALI 10. THE CIVIL SURGEON-CUM-CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER VAISHALI 11. THE MEDICAL OFFICER VAISHALI ----------- 2. 27.01.2010 Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing for the state. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of District Superintendent of Education, Vaishali (respondent No. 4). Petitioner was appointed on the post of Panchayat Teacher on 12.04.2007 against a reserved post for handicapped. He gave his joining on 16.8.2007. Since then he was continuously working on the post. Subsequently, one Rajesh Kumar who had also applied for the same post, challenged the appointment of the petitioner by filing C.W.J.C. No. 10014 of 2008. The writ application was disposed of, giving liberty to the petitioner for representing his case before competent authority who will conduct an inquiry after issuing notice to all concerned, including the petitioner. It seems that the District Superintendent of Education, 2 Vaishali, in the light of the direction in the writ application, conducted an ex parte inquiry. The petitioner, who was the beneficiary of the appointment, was not noticed. A report was called from, from the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Vaishali regarding the Disability Certificate produced by the petitioner at the time of his appointment. The Civil Surgeon-cum- Chief Medical Officer, Vaishali submitted his report vide letter No. 966 dated 27.5.2009 stating that no such certificate, as produced by the petitioner at the time of his appointment, was being issued by the Medical Board in the year, 1991. On the basis of this report, the District Superintendent of Education, Vaishali issued letter No. 1755 directing the Panchayat Secretary of Gram Panchayat Mahua Singh Rai to cancel the appointment of the petitioner as Panchayat Shikchak. In compliance of the direction of the District Superintendent of Education, Panchayat Secretary issued letter No. 7 dated 24.6.2009 cancelling his appointment on the ground that he got appointment on the basis of invalid certificate. A direction was also issued by the Panchayat Secretary for recovery of amount paid as salary to the petitioner, within the specified time. In the counter affidavit filed by the District Superintendent of Education, Vaishali, no where it is stated that before issuance of letter to the Panchayat Secretary for cancellation of petitioner’s appointment, the petitioner was also notice for filing show cause as no opportunity was assigned to him, simply the Civil Surgeon’s letter was relied on by the District 3 Superintendent of Education, Vaishali. The impugned letters have been challenged by the petitioner on two grounds; firstly, that the District Superintendent of Education, Vaishali has not been vested with power to terminate Panchayat Teacher either under Bihar Panchyat Teachers (Appointment & Service Conditions) Rules, 2006 or Amended Rule, 2008. The Block Development Officer was the competent authority under rule 18 of 2006 rules. The amended rule 18 has vested this power to District Panchayat Teachers Employment Appellate Tribunal constituted in each district. The impugned order has also been challenged on the ground that it has been passed in violation of the rule of natural justice. In the counter affidavit, there is no reply to the points raised by the petitioner. In case the inquiry was to be conducted by the District Superintendent of Education and he received any adverse report, in that circumstance, the report should have been referred before the competent authority for passing necessary orders in compliance of the rule of natural justice. Since it was not done, the impugned orders suffer on both counts, i.e. it is without jurisdiction and issued in violation of rule of natural justice. For both reasons, the impugned order is fit to be quashed. Accordingly, both the impugned orders issued by the District Superintendent of Education, Vaishali and Panchayat Secretary are quashed. However, respondents-authorities are free to take necessary action in accordance with law. AKV/ (Mridula Mishra, J.)