IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8599 of 2010 1. Shrikant Kumar, S/O Shri Deo Sharan Mistry, R/O Village Shankarpur, P.S. Belaganj, District-Gaya. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar, Through the Secretary, Primary And Adult Education Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 2. The District Teachers Appointment Appellate Authority, Gaya. 3. The District Magistrate, Gaya. 4. The District Superintendent Education Officer, Gaya. 5. The Block Extention Education Officer, Belaganj, Gaya. 6. The Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Belhari, Belaganj, Gaya. 7. The Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Belhari, Belaganj, Gaya. ---------------------------------- 4 09.12.2011 From the materials available on record, it appears that after the Bihar Panchayat Elementary Teachers (Appointment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2006 was promulgated and notified by the Government abolishing the post of Shiksha Mitra and converting all posts of Shiksha Mitras working in different Panchayats as regular post of Panchayat Teachers granting continuity of service to holders of the post, the District Magistrate, Gaya directed some enquiry to be made with regard to validity of appointment of holders of the post. Accordingly, a Committee was constituted to enquire in respect of validity of appointment of the designated Panchayat Teachers of Belaganj Panchayat. The Committee 2 found that the petitioner in 2003 was appointed on the post earmarked for E.B.C. category candidate, although he was of B.C. category. On the basis of such finding of the Committee, the Block Education Officer, Belaganj issued the office order dated 24.04.2009, as contained in Annexure-2. Petitioner moved in appeal against the said order before the Appellate Authority constituted in terms of Rule 18 of the Rules as amended in 2008. The Appellate Authority has rejected the appeal of the petitioner by order dated 13.02.2010, as contained in Annexure- 3. This Court need not go into much details of the issues involved in the case as learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on an order of this Court dated 17.10.2011 passed in two writ applications, namely, CWJC No.11068 of 2010 and CWJC No.4628 of 2010. Copy of the said orders of this Court is Annexure-5 with the supplementary affidavit of the petitioner. The order was passed in respect of cancellation of appointment of teachers of the same very Panchayat. After going through the orders, this Court finds that this Court has held that after the statutory Rules came into force with effect from 3 01.07.2006, any appointment of any Panchayat Teacher could be cancelled only on the basis of complaint filed and entertained in terms of Rule 18 of the Rules and not otherwise. This Court has held that the District Magistrate or the Block Education Officer had no authority under the Rules to interfere with the appointment of any Panchayat Teacher. In the present case also there does not appear to be any complaint against the petitioner by any aggrieved party filed and entertained in terms of Rule 18 of the Rules. In the case of the petitioner also it was the order of the District Magistrate on the basis of which the Committee found his appointment as not in the category to which he belonged. The Rules have been framed by the State Government in terms of Article 243 (‘Chha’) of the Constitution and hence no authority, not empowered under the Rules, has any jurisdiction to interfere with the appointments of Panchayat Teachers becoming regular employee in terms of the Rules. A counter affidavit has been filed in this case in which stand is that vacancy of Shiksha Mitra was for E.B.C. category whereas petitioner belonged to B.C. category and hence he could not be appointed. However, after going through the orders 4 of this Court, as contained in Annexure-5 with the supplementary affidavit, learned counsel for the respondents fairly accepts that the issues involved in this case has already been answered by this Court in the said order. In the circumstances, this writ application is allowed. Annexure-2, the order of the Block Education Officer dated 24.04.2009 and Annexure-3, the order of the District Teacher Employment Appellate Authority, Gaya dated 13.02.2010, are quashed. Petitioner shall be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits. Arvind/ ( J.N. Singh, J.)