IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9730 of 2008 KAILASH YADAV, S/O SHRI KAMESHWARI YADAV, R/O VILLAGE-SAHUPARA, P.S.-SANOKHAR, DISTRICT- BHAGALPUR. ………PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. THE COMMISSIONER-CUM-SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE DIRECTOR, PRIMARY EDUCATION, BIHAR, PATNA. 4. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, BHAGALPUR, DISTRICT- BHAGALPUR. 5. THE SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER, SUB-DIVISION KAHALGAON, DISTRICT-BHAGALPUR. 6. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, SANHOULA BLOCK, DISTRICT-BHAGALPUR. 7. THE BLOCK EDUCATION EXTENSION OFFICER, SANHOULA BLOCK, DISTRICT-BHAGALPUR. 8. THE PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, SILHAN-KHAJURIA PANCHAYAT, SANHOULA BLOCK, DISTRICT- BHAGALPUR. 9. THE MUKHIYA, SILHAN KHAJURIA PANCHAYAT, SANHOULA BLOCK, DISTRICT-BHAGALPUR. ……………RESPONDENTS. ----------- 3 20.09.2011 In view of the order which this Court proposes to pass in this case, there is no necessity to await for receipt of service of notice on respondent no.9 which was ordered to be issued by order dated 07.12.2010. In this writ application petitioner has challenged an order of the B.D.O. dated 18.04.2008, as contained in Annexure-1, by which he has found the entire selection process of appointment of Panchayat Teachers 2 in the Panchayat as not in accordance with law and has therefore set aside the appointments made. Petitioner is also affected by the said order and his appointment has also been cancelled. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that one Sanjeev Kumar had filed a complaint before the S.D.O. who submitted some report to the B.D.O. through his letter dated 22.02.2008 which was made basis for passing the order. He submits that at the relevant time the B.D.O. was the Appellate Authority under the Rules. Hence, it was he who had to apply his independent mind on a complaint and then only he could pass orders. He was not authorized under law to act on the dictates or reports of any other authority. He also submits that the order is a cryptic one without giving any detailed reasons and no notice was issued to the petitioner or any other teacher in the process before cancelling their appointments. Whether the B.D.O. could get an inquiry held by any authority on a complaint or not is a question which could arise in this case. But it is not necessary to go into 3 that question as it is apparent that the impugned order of B.D.O. is in violation of Principles of Natural Justice and a non- speaking one. Hence, the said impugned order, as contained in Annexure-1, is quashed. The B.D.O./District Programme Officer or the concerned authority is directed to transmit the said complaint of Sanjeev Kumar and all connected records/reports to the newly constituted Appellate Authority under the Rules within four weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. After the records are received by the Appellate Authority, the Appellate Authority shall issue notice to the concerned parties including the petitioner giving them opportunity to be heard, shall call for the original records to examine the correctness of the procedure adopted by the employment agency who made the appointments of the petitioner and others and shall pass a reasoned order positively within three months from the date of receipt of the records from the B.D.O. or other concerned authorities. However, on account of quashing of Annexure- 4 1, petitioner shall not be entitled for joining as the matter is being directed to be remitted to the Appellate Authority for decision. Hence, petitioner’s joining will await the final decision of the Appellate Authority which must be passed within the time frame indicated above. The writ application is disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. Arvind/ ( J.N. Singh, J.)