IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15909 of 2009 1. BRENJIT KUMAR PRASAD S/O SRI RAM PRASAD, R/O VILL- BAHRAULI,P.O-BAHRAULI, P.S- MASHRAKH, DISTT- SARAN AT CHAPRA, PRESENTLY WORKING AS PANCHAYAT TEACHER IN PRIMARY SCHOOL, KUER TOLA, BLOCK-MASHRAKH, DISTT- SARAN AT CHAPRA----petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPRTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE DIRECTOR, PRIMARY EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 4. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, SARAN AT CHAPRA, DISTT- SARAN AT CHAPRA 5. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, SARAN AT CHAPRA, DISTT- SITAMARHI 6. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, MASHRAKH, DISTT- SARAN AT CHAPRA 7. THE BLOCK EDUCATION EXTENSION OFFICER, MASHRAKH, DISTT- SARAN AT CHAPRA 8. THE MUKHIYA, GRAM PANCHYAT RAJ, BAHRAULI, BLOCK- BAHRAULI, DISTT- SARAN AT CHAPRA 9. THE PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ, BAHRAULI, BLOCK-BAHARAULI, DISTT- SARAN AT CHAPRA 10. LALAN PRASAD, S/O SRI LAL BAHADUR PRASAD R/O VILL AND P.O- BAHRAULI KUER TOLA, P.S- MASHRAK, DISTT- SARAN AT CHAPRA- respondents ----------- 3. 12.8.2010 Petitioner was selected and appointed as Panchayat Shiksha Mitra and was subsequently regularized as Panchayat Teacher in the year 2006. Thereafter a complaint was made in the year 2008 against the petitioner’s selection as Shiksha Mitra. The District Superintendent of Education got enquiry done in the matter and based on the enquiry directed the termination of petitioner’s appointment and further directed the complainant to be appointed instead. 2 Petitioner challenges these orders which has only now been given effect to. Notices were issued to the Mukhiya, Panchayat Secretary and the private respondent who has been directed to be appointed in place of petitioner. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of Mukhiya and the Panchayat Secretary. They have categorically stated that private respondent No.10 did not give his consent at the time of counselling and it is because of that he was not appointed. It is further submitted on their behalf that this was the stage of appointment of Shiksha Mitra and he did not make any complaint. It is only after the new Rules came into being by which the working Shiksha Mitras were absorbed as Panchayat Teachers that belatedly a complaint was made. He refers to judgment of this Court in the case of Alok Kumar & Ors. vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.:2009(2) PLJR 929 for the proposition that at the belated stage after absorption of Shiksha Mitra as Panchayat Teacher no objection would be entertained by any one. On the other hand, Mr.Mangalam for the petitioner submits that even otherwise District Superintendent of Education was not competent to take any action for termination of petitioner’s 3 services. His further stand is that the termination of service would not be done without notice to the petitioner and without hearing the petitioner. He referred to Rule 18 of the Bihar Panchayat Elementary Teachers(Appointment and Service Condition) Rules, 2006 which provides that the complaint has to be made to the Block Development Officer concerned and ,that too, within thirty days. No such complaint was ever made at least within thirty days. Thus, having heard the parties and considering the arguments, I find that on all counts the termination of services of the petitioner cannot be sustained. The challenge not having been made within the time prescribed and before the authority prescribed the challenge to petitioner’s appointment could not have been entertained. Further, once Rules have been made conforming authority as the Block Development Officer to decide the matter, the District Superintendent of Education had no business to look into the matter and pass orders. His interference was without jurisdiction. Lastly it is well settled that no order to the prejudice of any one can be passed without hearing him. Here the petitioner was not even noticed and neither any proceeding was initiated to the knowledge of the petitioner 4 and, as such, for the reasons aforesaid, the impugned orders cannot be sustained. Accordingly, Annexures- 5 & 6 issued by the District Superintendent of Education directing cancellation of appointment of the petitioner and the consequential order issued by the Mukhiya concerned dated 27.4.2010 are quashed. Consequently, it would be deemed that the petitioner has been in continuous service for all purposes. The writ petition is allowed. (Navaniti Prasad Singh,J.) Spal/