IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8726 of 2007 Punam Kumari, wife of Manoj Kumar Prasad, resident of village Agrail Khurd, P.S. Baligoan, District Vaishali … Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Bihar, patna 2. The Commissioner cum Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Bihar, Patna 3. The Director, Primary Education, Bihar, Patna 4. The District Superintendent of Education cum Bihar District Programme Co-ordinator, Vaishali at Hajipur 5. The Sub-divisional Education Officer, Hajipur, District Vaishali 6. Block Education Extension Officer, Patepur, District Vaishali 7. District Officer, Vaishali at Hajipur 8. Block Development Officer, Patepur, Vaishali 9. The Mukhiya cum Chairman, Sukh Subidha Samiti, Grampanchayat Raj, Agrail Khurd, Patepur, District Vaishali 10. The Panchayat Secretary, Grampanchayat Raj Agrail Khurd, Patepur, District Vaishali 11. Kumari Punam Rai, wife of Arun Rai, resident of village Agrail Khurd, P.S. Baligaon, District Vaishali … Respondents ----------- 3. 14.7.2011 Heard counsel for the parties. The prayer made by the petitioner for implementation of an order dated 10.1.2007 contained in Annexure 9 which seeks removal of respondent no.11 from the post of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra is not sustainable mainly because such an order was passed after 30.6.2006 when the post of Shiksha Mitra had stood abolished in terms of Panchayat Shikshak Rules 2006. 2 True it is that the Block Development Officer in terms of Rule 18 Panchayat Shikshak Rules 2006 was the competent authority even to decide any complaint relating to employment on the post of Panchayat/ Prakhand Shikshak but then any order detrimental to the interest of continuing Panchayat/ Prakhand Shikshak could have been passed only after affording opportunity of personal hearing. Admittedly that was never done and the B.D.O. had passed the impugned order for removal of respondent no.11 without complying the principles of natural justice. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order was a mere direction of the B.D.O. to Panchayat Secretary/Mukhia to cancel the appointment of respondent no.11 and that the Panchayat Secretary before issuing the consequential order had to comply the principle of natural justice has to be only noted for its being rejected. If there was already a direction by the higher authority to the Panchayat Secretary to cancel the appointment of respondent no.11 what purpose 3 could it have been served even if respondent no.11 was given notice and/or opportunity of hearing by the Panchayat Secretary. Such empty formality of notice and/or hearing would not have served the strict requirement of adherence to the principles of natural justice. Counsel for the petitioner, however, would point out that the finding recorded by the B.D.O. is quite serious, inasmuch as if the same is accepted to be correct in that case the very appointment of respondent no.11 would become vitiated on account of fraud, antedating and/or changing the earlier decision of Gram Sabha by re- pasting over the relevant page of the proceeding book and therefore, this Court should not allow respondent no.11 to continue in service even on the absorbed post of Prakhand Shikshak. In the considered opinion of this Court once the order of the B.D.O. dated 10.1.2007 is held to be bad on the ground of violation of principle of natural justice it would not be fair to give any credence to the findings recorded by the B.D.O. behind 4 the back of respondent no.11. Admittedly respondent no.11 has got the benefit of 2006 Rules by being absorbed on the post of Panchayat Shikshak/ Prakhand Shikshak in terms of Rule 20(3) of 2006 Rules only on the strength of her continuance as Shiksha Mitra as on 30.6.2006. The same 2006 Rules also provides for looking into any sort of complaint relating to the employment on the post of Panchayat/ Prakhand Shikshak by the District Teachers Appellate Authority which came into force with effect from 2008. As respondent no.11 has continued in service till date and therefore, any complaint against her employment as Panchayat Shikshak/Shiksha Mitra could still be looked into by the present body which is in office and therefore, this Court would only give liberty to the petitioner to approach the concerned District Teachers Appellate Authority for filing a complaint as with regard to engagement of respondent no. 11 initially as a shiksha Mitra and her subsequent absorption on the post of Panchayat Shikshak. In view of the fact that this writ application was pending from 5 Surendra/ 20.7.2007, this Court would direct the Authority to dispose of such complaint on merits after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and respondent no. 11. It is however, made clear that even if it is held that the post of Prakhand Shikshak occupied by respondent no. 11 becomes vacant on account of some inherent infirmity/illegality in the engagement of respondent no. 11 as a Shiksha Mitra, the resultant vacancy of Panchayat Shishak would be only filled up by undergoing afresh process meant for filling up the post of Panchayat Shikshak under 2006 Rules in which the earlier panel of Shiksha Mitra on the basis of which the petitioner and respondent no. 11 had made the competing claims will not be given any weight or importance. With the aforementioned observation and direction this application is disposed of. (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)