IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.17811 of 2008 Ranjani Sinha, D/o-Sri Ram Sharan Prasad Singh, W/o-Rana Rajeev Raman, R/o-Vill. & P.S.-Pakara, Donia tola, P.S.-Navgachchia, District-Bhagalpur. -Petitioner. VERSUS 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The D.M., Katihar. 3. The D.S.E., Katihar. 4. The B.D.O., Block-Mansahi, District-Katihar. 5. The B.E.E.O., Pranpur (West), Block-Mansahi, District-Katihar. 6. The Mukhia, Gram Panchayat Kuretha, Block-Mansahi, District-Katihar. 7. Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat-Kuretha, Block-Mansahi, District- Katihar. 8. The Headmaster, Primary School, Govindpur, Pranpur (West), Block-Mansahi, District-Katihar. –Respondents. ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Shabbir Ahmad. Mr. Shambhu Sharan Singh. For the State : Mr. M.K. Ambastha, G.P.-IX. Mr. Subodh Kumar, AC to G.P.-IX. ------------ 05 31.03.2011 The petitioner was appointed as a Panchayat Teacher under Gram Panchayat Kuretha in the district of Katihar. The appointment of the petitioner has been set aside by the District Superintendent of Education, Katihar vide Memo No.1084 dated 26.03.2007. A reference to the said order of the District Superintendent of Education itself would show that it has been passed on the direction of the District Magistrate, Katihar. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the appointments of Panchayat Teachers are done by the Panchayat Samiti in accordance with the Bihar Panchayat Teachers (Appointment and Service Condition) Rules, 2006. This rule itself by virtue of Rule 18 provides for the authority before whom disputes have to be taken. Earlier, it was the Block Development Officer which with effect from - 2 - 2009 has been substituted by the District Appellate Authority in this regard. The District Superintendent of Education or for that matter the District Magistrate has no authority at all in the matter. A counter affidavit has been filed by the Block Education Extension Officer which merely states that the Collector had taken action upon a report submitted by the B.D.O. It further states that petitioner has alternative remedy before the Appellate Tribunal. Heard the parties and with their consent this writ petition is being disposed of at this stage itself. In my view, both contentions as raised by the respondent State are untenable. Firstly, as noticed above, Rule-18 gives specific statutory authority to take an action. Undisputedly, the statutory authority has not taken any action, rather, it has left it to the District Magistrate to take an action. The District Magistrate is a person non grata for the said purpose. He is a foreigner to this matter. Thus, he had no jurisdiction in the matter and, as such, he could not have directed the D.S.E. to cancel the appointment. Thus, the action and the order of the D.S.E., as noted above, cannot be sustained and, it is, accordingly, quashed. So far as plea of State with regard to alternative remedy before the Tribunal is concerned, it is equally misconceived. A reference to Rule-18 would show that the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to adjudicate a dispute with regard to the service conditions or the service is not the Appellate Authority over the orders of the Collector, - 3 - especially, when the orders of the Collector itself is wholly without jurisdiction. If the order of the Collector is wholly without jurisdiction then the order is void-ab-inito and no appeal to the Tribunal would lie from such an order. The order is to be set aside by this Court issuing writ of certiorari. That being so, I am left with no option but to set aside the order of the District Superintendent of Education under Memo No.1084 dated 26.03.2007 with consequential relief that the petitioner would be deemed to be continuing in service without break and would be entitled to all remuneration as if she has never been dismissed. This writ petition, thus, stands allowed. Trivedi/ (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)