IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.W.J.C. No.918 of 2009 Alok Kumar Pathak, son of Shri Umesh Shankar Pathak, resident of village and P.O. Malipur, P.S. Garhpura, district Begusarai .. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Secretary (Primary Education) Human Resources Development Department, Government of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna 2. The Director, Secondary Education, Human Resources Development Department, Government of Bihar, New Secretiar, Patna 3. District Magistrate, Begusarai 4. District Superintendent of Education, Begusarai 5. Block Education Extension Officer, Khodabandpur-cum-Chhorahi, District Begusarai 6. Block Development Officer, Chhorahi, district Begusarai 7. Panchayat Sachiv, village Panchayat – Savat, Block Chhorahi, District Begusarai 8. Shri Sanjay Kumar, C/O Head Master, Prathmik Vidyalaya, Bakhadda, P.O. Chhorahi, P.S. Meghaul, district Begusarai .. Respondents **** /2/ 10.02.2009 Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. Prayer of the petitioner is for quashing the order issued by the Block Development Officer, Chhorahi, Begusarai, contained in Memo No. 581, dated 04.10.2008, whereby the Panchayat Secretary has been directed for making fresh appointment from the merit list on the post of Panchayat Shikchak ofRaj Savat Gram Panchayat due to submission of resignation by Alok Kumar Pathak (petitioner) 2 during the enquiry being conducted on receiving complaints relating to illegality in the appointment of panchayat teacher. 3. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order (Annexure 1) is bad on two counts. Firstly, the ground for issuing such order by the Block Development Officer being the resignation submitted by the petitioner is non-existent. He never submitted any resignation. Secondly, the order is completely without jurisdiction. Enquiry was being conducted by the Block Development Officer in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 18 of the 2006 Rules receiving complaints regarding illegal appointment. Petitioner was noticed, but, nothing was done on account of absence of Block Development Officer. Suddenly, without any reason the enquiry was stopped and the impugned order was passed on this ground that petitioner has submitted his resignation though, in fact, he never had submitted any resignation. The first ground for issuing impugned order being non-existent, it is bad 4. Secondly, it is submitted by the petitioner’s counsel that impugned order is bad as it is withut jurisdiction in view of the amended provision under 2008 Rules. The 3 Bihar Panchayat Primary Teachers (Rrecruitment and Condition of Service) Rules, 2006, was amended by 2008 Rules. The amended 2008 Rules came in force on 25th August, 2008. Rule 18 of 2006 Rules was substituted by Rule 11 of 2008 Rules. Jurisdiction which earlier vested in the Block Development Officer under Rule 18 was now vested in the Tribunal under Rule 11 of 2008 Rules. The impugned orders have been passed by the Block Development Officer on 04.10.2008 subsequent to the coming into force of 2008 Rules on 25th August, 2008. On the date impugned order was passed, Block Development Officer had not jurisdiction to pass such order. 5. Prayer of the petitioner is that considering the illegality apparent the impugned order is fit to be quashed. Since, the point, raised by the petitioner relates to the Rules no counter affidavit is required for disposing of this case. The impugned order, contained in Annexure 1, dated 04.10.2008, passed by the Block Development Officer, Chhorahi, Begusarai, is quashed with all subsequent and consequential orders. 6. It has been informed by the counsel for the State 4 that in compliance of the direction of the Block Development Officer, contained in impugned order respondent no. 8 has been appointed by the Panchayat Secretary on the post of Panchayat Teacher vide order order, dated 12.12.2008. Since the order passed by Block Development Officer itself is an order illegal and without jurisdiction, as such, all consequential orders passed, on account of passing of the impugned Annexure 1 are also nullities in the eye of law. However, the Tribunal, which is now vested with such power under Rule 11 is directed to conduct enquiry afresh earlier being conducted on receiving complaints regarding illegality in appointment. The Tribunal is directed to issue notice to the petitioner and respondent no. 8 for participating in the enquiry and pass order in accordance with law considering all relevant aspects, in this regard. 7. With these observations and directions, this application is allowed. Cp:2/S.A. ( Mridula Mishra, J. )