IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.16106 of 2010 ==================================== Pramod Kumar S/O Sri Damodar Prasad R/O Vill.- Bharati, P.O.- Jogipur, P.S.- Hilsa, Distt.- Nalanda. .... .... Petitioner. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The District Magistrate, Nalanda Null Null 3. The District Education Superintendent, Nalanda 4. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Hilsa, Distt.- Nalanda 5. The Block Education Officer, Hilsa, Distt.- Nalanda 6. The Block Development Officer, Hilsa, Distt.- Nalanda 7. Anjani Kumar Mukhiya Of Asharhi Gram Panchayat Block- Hilsa, Distt.- Nalanda 8. Kameshwar Prasad Panchayat Sewak, Gram Panchayat, Asharhi, Block- Hilsa, Distt.- Nalanda. .... .... Respondents. ==================================== For the Petitioner : Mrs.Sheela Sharma, Advocate. Shivendra Kumar Roy, Advocate. For the State : Mr. (Gp10) ==================================== 3 05.05.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. By the order of District Magistrate at least eight panchayat teachers came to be removed because authorities found that the mukhiya had adopted a novel method of recruitment contrary to the law and the rules promulgated by the State of Bihar. The mukhiya had taken decision to hold a competitive examination for appointment of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra which has not even been talked about or provided in the Rules for such appointment. Counsel for the petitioner brings to my notice a decision rendered in case of Randhir Kumar Vs. The State of Bihar which is L.P.A. No.773 of 2011decided on 5.4.2011. Reliance is being placed on such decision because the said Randhir Kumar was one of the persons who happened to be removed by the order of the District Magistrate in similar circumstance. The Division Bench however held that since such appointment was not obtained by playing fraud or misrepresentation therefore such appointment cannot be said to be bad merely because the procedure had not been followed. However, the division bench while concluding held that removal as such, therefore, cannot be upheld. The petitioner of that case was directed to be reinstated with a clear indication that the order of the Division Bench was not to be treated as a precedent in any future appointments. Since the case of the present petitioner arises from the same transaction therefore the court goes by the wisdom of the Division Bench and orders reinstatement of the petitioner as well as in view of the ratio laid down by the Division Bench in the case of Randhir Kumar. This writ application is disposed of with above observation. PN (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)