IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14740 of 2009 LALITA KUMARI W/O RAM JANAM PRASAD VILL.- OBRA, P.S.- OBRA, DISTT.- AURANGABAD. WITH CWJC No.773 of 2010 SHARDA KUWAR W/O LATE SANTOSH KUMAR R/O VILL.- OBRA, P.S. OBRA, DISTT.- AURANGABAD. VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE COMMISSIONER-CUM-PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE DIRECTOR, PRIMARY EDUCATION GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 4. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE AURANGABAD 5. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION DISTT.- AURANGABAD 6. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER BLOCK- OBRA, DISTT- AURANGABAD 7. THE BLOCK EDUCATION EXTENSION OFFICER BLOCK- OBRA, DISTT.- AURANGABAD 8. THE MUKHIYA GRAM PANCHAYAT-OBRA, DISTT.- AURANGABAD 9. THE PANCHAYAT SECRETARY GRAM PANCHAYAT OBRA, DISTT.- AURANGABAD ----------- 04 07.09.2010 The two writ petitioners in these two writ applications challenge the order of the Principal Secretary, Department of Human Resources, Government of Bihar, Patna dated 06.10.2009 (Annexure- 1). By the said order, the Principal Secretary who was directed to look into the matter by the order of the High Court has held that there was no question of payment of salary to the petitioners as services of the petitioners as Shiksha Mitras stood terminated on 16.07.2005, even though, he has noticed in his order that on a surprise inspection, being made in the School, by the Deputy Superintendent of Education on 21.07.2007, petitioners were found teaching in the School. Petitioners firstly challenge that the District Magistrate, - 2 - who said to have cancelled the appointments by letter no.1806 dated 16.07.2005, had no authority to do so but petitioners were re- employed thereafter on 29.04.2006, which fact is not disputed. Therefore, whether the Collector validly terminated the services of the petitioners looses all relevance. Then, on 12.09.2009 the Block Development Officer has cancelled the appointments. So far as B.D.O. is concerned, he had the authority to cancel the appointment when the 2006 Rules were issued. In 2008 Clause-18 was amended and the power was given to the Appellate Tribunal newly constituted. Thereafter, the B.D.O. ceased to have authority in these matters. Thus, both the orders of cancellation are ineffectual. The result is that the order of the cancellation of petitioner’s appointment ineffectual and, they having been found working, they cannot be held to be dismissed in accordance with law and they would deemed to be continuing. It may also be noted here that neither the Gram Panchayat nor the Mukhiya had at any point issued any order terminating petitioners’ services rather petitioners have been permitted to continue. In that view of the matter, the petitioners’ termination being ineffectual and that being working, they were entitled to their honorarium. The writ petitions are, thus, allowed. The order of the Principal Secretary is set aside. The petitioners would be entitled to full honorarium from the time their appointments made for the second time and, as such, they would be deemed to be continuing in service. Trivedi/ (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)