IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.15247 of 2008 Santosh Kumar Sharma, son of Sri Damodar Prasad Sharma, Resident of village Pokhraira, P.O. Hasanganj, P.S. Dandkhora, District Katihar….............................Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. The Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Director, Primary Education, Government of Bihar, Patna. 4. The District Magistrate, Katihar. 5. The District Superintendent of Education, Katihar. 6. The Block Development Officer, Katihar, District Katihar. 7. The Block Education Extension Officer, Katihar, District Katihar. 8. The Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Raj, Bhawara, Block Katihar, District Katihar. 9. The Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Raj, Bhawara, Block Katihar, District Katihar. 10. Prakash Kumar, son of Prayag Prasad Chauhan, Resident of village Bheirya Rahika, P.S. Katihar, District Katihar, Presently working as Panchayat Teacher in Primary School, Bhang Tola, Anchal Katihar, District Katihar………Respondents --------- 2 29.11.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the State. The grievance of the petitioner in this writ application is that though he was under the category of E.B.C. and had higher marks point, a candidate having lesser marks had been appointed as Panchayat Teacher. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in this respect petitioner 2 has already filed a complaint before the Block Development Officer, who had power to entertain complaints in terms of unamended Rule 18 of the Rules. He submits that after notice, Block Development Officer passed an order as contained in Annexure-6 on 11.09.2008 on which date, through Amendment in the Rules, Block Development Officer was replaced by statutory Appellate Authority to entertain complaints/appeals in respect of appointment or otherwise of Panchayat Teachers. Hence, Block Development Officer had no authority on the date to pass any order on the complaint of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondents does not dispute that on 11.09.2008 when the Block Development Officer had passed orders, he had no authority under the Rules to entertain any complaint or pass any order in the matter of disputes in respect of appointment or otherwise of Panchayat Teachers. In the circumstances, the order of the Block Development Officer, Katihar dated 11.09.2008, as contained in 3 Annexure-6, is held without jurisdiction and the same is quashed. The District Programme Officer (Establishment), Katihar, who is now Incharge of the affairs of services of Panchayat Teachers, is directed to transmit all the records along with the complaint of petitioner to the Statutory Appellate Authority established in terms of 2008 Amendment in the Rules within four weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. On receipt of the records, the Appellate Authority shall issue notice to the concerned parties, shall call for the records, if necessary, and shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with law preferably within the time limit fixed under the Rules for disposal of such matters. This writ application is allowed in the manner, as indicated above. BT (J. N. Singh, J.)