IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13427 of 2009 1. DINESH PRASAD S/O BRAHMDEO PRASAD VILL & P.O. LOMA, P.S. TISIAUTA, DISTT. VAISHALI 2. RAM SRINGAR RAI S/O SRI SARYUG RAI VILL- ROHUA, P.O. SAHPUR, P.S. JANDAHA, DISTT. VAISHALI 3. RAVI KUMAR PASWAN S/O SRI MAHESHWAR PASWAN VILL- BABANGHAT, P.O. ADALPUR, P.S. MAHUA, DISTT. VAISHALI 4. PUNAM KUMARI W/O SRI SAROJ KUMAR VILL- ROHUA, P.O. SAHPUR, P.S. JANDAHA, DISTT. VAISHALI 5. SUSHIL KUMAR JHA S/O MARKANDEY JHA VILL & P.O. LOMA, P.S. TISIAUTA, DISTT. VAISHALI 6. GULAB SINGH S/O LATE YUGESHWSAR SINGH VILL- BANDAULIA, P.S. JANDAHA, DISTT. VAISHALI 7. KUMARI AMBIKA W/O MUKESH KUMAR PRABHAKAR VILL- ROHUA, P.O. SAHPUR, P.S. JANDAHA, DISTT. VAISHALI 8. SAROJ KUMARI W/O SUBODH CHOUDHARY VILL- ROHUA, P.O. SAHPUR, P.S. JANDAHA, DISTT. VAISHALI 9. AMRESH THAKUR S/O MAHENDRA THAKUR VILL- RAMPAUR CHAKLALA, P.O. & P.S. JANDAHA, DISTT. VAISHALI 10. SUCHITA KUMARI W/O BALRAM SAH VILL & P.O. LOMA, P.S. TISIAUTA, DISTT. VAISHALI Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE VAISHALI 3. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION VAISHALI, DISTT. VAISHALI 4. THE BLOCK EDUCATION EXTENSION OFFICER JANDAHA, P.O. & P.S. JANDAHA, DISTT. VAISHALI 5. THE MUKHIYA GRAM PANCHAYAT, LOMA, P.O. LOMA, P.S. JANDAHA, DISTT. VAISHALI 6. THE PANCHAYAT SECRETARY GRAM PANCHAYAT, LOMA, P.O. LOMA, P.S. JANDAHA, DISTT. VAISHALI ----------- 3 28.1.2010 Heard counsel for the petitioners and the counsel appearing for the State. The impugned order contained in memo no.716 dated 8.9.2009 has been issued under the signature of the District 2 Superintendent of Education, Vaishali at Hajipur, whereby the appointment of the petitioners on the post of Panchayat Teacher has been held illegal payment of salary to the petitioners has been held as misuse of Government money. The District Superintendent of Education has also recommended for recovery of such amount, paid as salary to the petitioner as well as a recommendation has been issued for instituting First Information Report and initiate departmental proceeding against Mukhiya and Panchayat Secretary of Gram Panchayat Raj Loma, at Vaishali. Counsel for the petitioners submits that as per the recruitment Rules, 2006 the competent authority for passing such orders, was the Block Development Officer. Subsequent to 2008 amendment in the Rules, the competent authority is District Teachers Employment Appellate Tribunal. The 3 impugned order has also been challenged on the ground that it is without jurisdiction. The impugned order has also been challenged by the petitioners on the ground that it has been passed in violation of the rules of natural justice. A valuable right of the petitioners have been taken by cancelling their appointment, without even issuing any notice to show cause and without assigning any opportunity to defend their case. It has also been submitted by the petitioners’ counsel that the dismissal order could have been passed against the petitioners only by following the procedure for passing such orders, as provided under the Rules. Order of dismissed have been passed without observing the procedure for passing such order. Prayer of the petitioners is for quashing of the order contained in Memo no. 716 dated 8.9.2009 passed by the District Superintendent of Education, Vaishali. 4 Counsel appearing for the State, when questioned regarding the legality of the order, could not satisfy the Court that the impugned order is in consonance with the Rules. Considering the fact that impugned order is completely illegal and without jurisdiction, it is fit to be quashed. The order contained in memo no. 716 dated 8.9.2009 is quashed. This application is allowed. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioners from the date of their termination, with all consequential benefits. (Mridula Mishra,J.) A.Kumar