IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13897 of 2008 1.SURESH KUMAR SON OF BALIRAM SAH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND P.O. MAHAMDA, POLICE STATION GARKHA, DISTRICT- SARAN 2. AJAY KUMAR SON OF NASHIBI PRASAD RAY RESIDENT OF VILLAGE LADHPUR, P.O. GURUKUL MEHIYAN POLICE STATION GARKHA, DISTRICT-SARAN 3.PAPPU KUMAR SON FO MEDHULAL RAM RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BABHANAIYAN, P.O. PAHARPUR POLICE STATION GARKHA, DISTRICT SARAN 4.KIRAN KUMARI DEVI W/O KAMESHWAR PRASAD YADAV,RESIDENT OF VILLAGE LADHPUR, P.O. GURUKUL MEHIYAN POLICE STATION GARKHA, DISTRICT SARAN 5.RINA KUMARI W/O VIBHU KUMAR GIRI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BABHANAIYAN, P.O. PAHARPUR POLICE STATION GARKHA, DISTRICT SARANA-------PETITIONERS . Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE COMMISSIONER-CUM-SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE COMMISSIONER, SARAN DIVISION, SARAN 4. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, SARAN 5. THE DEPUTY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER, SARAN 6. THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, SARAN 7. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION-CUM- COORDINATOR SARVA SIKSHA ABHIYAN, SARAN 8. THE DISTRICT PANCHAYAT RAJ OFFICER, SARAN 9. THE SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER, SADAR, SARAN 10. THE EXECUTIVE MAGISTRATE, SADAR, SARAN 11. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, GARKHA, SARAN 12. THE BLOCK AGRICULTURE OFFICER, GARKHA, SARAN 13. THE BLOCK EDUCATION EXTENSION OFFICER, GARKHA, SARAN 14. THE MUKHIYA GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ MAHAMDA, GARKHA, SARAN 15. THE PANCHAYAT SECRETARYD GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ MAHAMDA, GARKHA, SARAN.. with CWJC No.13972 of 2008 1. DINESH KUMAR SON OF SHAMBHU NATH SHARMA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND P.O. MAHAMDA, POLICE STATION GARKHA, DISTRICT SARAN 2. BHUPEN RAY SON OF SHIVJI RAY, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND P.O. MAHAMDA MANGAL TOLA, POLICE STATION GARKHA, DISTRICT SARAN. 3. LALMUNI SINHA W/O RAMESH KUMAR SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND POST MAHAMDA, POLICE STATION GARKHA DISTRICT-SARAN 4. RIMA DEVI WIFE OF UMESH KUMAR RAY, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND P.O. MAHAMDA, POLICE STATION GARKHA, DISTRICT SARAN 2 5. MANORMA KUMARI W/O AKHILESH PANDIT RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND P.O. MAHAMDA, POLICE STATION GARKHA, SARAN 6. SHARDA KUMARI D/O SHESNATH SINGH RESIDENT VILLAGE AND P.O. MAHAMDA, POLICE STATION GARKHA, DISTRICT SARAN----PETITIONERS . Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS . ----------- For the petitioner:- Mr. Rajendra Narain, Advocate For the State:- G.P. IX 2 15.4.2010 Heard counsel for the petitioners and the counsel appearing for the State. Petitioners were initially engaged as Panchayat Shiksha Mitra in the year 2005 at Garkha, Saran. Subsequently with effect from 1.7.2006, they were absorbed on the post of Panchayat Teacher as provided under Rule 20 (iii) of Bihar Primary Panchayat Teachers (Appointment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2006. While the petitioners were working in different schools some of unsuccessful candidates filed their complaints before the Block Development Officer, Garkha at Saran challenging the panel prepared for appointment of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra in the year 2005, on the basis of which the petitioners had been appointed as Panchayat Shiksha Mitras posts. The Block Development Officer, Garkha entertained the complaints 3 filed by the unsuccessful candidates and passed an order dated 27.8.2008 contained in Memo no. 610 cancelling appointment of all such teachers who were absorbed on account of their initial engagement in the year 2005 on the post of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra. The impugned order passed by the Block Development Officer, Garkha (Annexure-4) has been challenged by the petitioners on different grounds. First ground is that the impugned order has been passed without issuing any notice to the petitioners; as such it is violative of the principles of natural justice. The second ground taken by the petitioners is that since petitioners’ appointment on the post of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra in the year 2005 was under challenge, as such the Block Development Officer, Garkha was not competent authority for passing any order of cancellation of their appointments. The guidelines for appointment of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra had provided this jurisdiction of entertaining such complaints only is the District Magistrate of the District. In this view, the order is without jurisdiction. Thirdly, it is stated that the 4 impugned order passed by the Block Development Officer, Garkha on 27.8.2008, is completely without jurisdiction as by that time there has been amendment in Rule 18 of 2006 Rules and Rule 18 which provided jurisdiction to the Block Development Officer to act as an Appellate Authority has been amended. Under amended Rule 18 only District Teachers Employment Appellate Tribunal was vested with the power to entertain appeals and pass orders in the matters of appointment, transfer, promotion, termination of Panchayat Teachers/Prakhand Teachers. Counsel appearing for the State has submitted that the writ application filed by the petitioners is premature, for the reason that subsequent to the issuance of impugned order dated 27.8.2008 contained in Memo No. 610, an order has been passed by the Block Development Officer, Garkha on 12.9.2008 contained in Memo No.683, whereby the impugned order Annexure-4 has been stayed. On account of stay of the earlier order, petitioners have not been terminated. They are still continuing on the posts, as such no cause of action has 5 arisen for challenging the impugned order. In reply to the submission, counsel for the petitioners submits that stay order is just an ad-interim arrangement, it can be withdrawn at any point of time. On account of recalling of that stay order, the impugned order Annexure-4 will again revive, in which there is specific direction for cancellation of petitioners’ appointment. Counsel for the petitioners has further submits that despite stay order passed by the Block Development Officer, Garkha, petitioners’ are not being paid their salary, on account of the order issued Annexure-4. Considering the submissions made by the parties and the point of law involved in the writ applications relating to jurisdiction, I find that Block Development Officer, Garkha could not have passed impugned order on 27.8.2008, since he was no more Appellate Authority under Rule 18 and also because being an Appellate Authority under Rule 2006 could have passed any order prior to the date of amendment in the matters of appointment of Panchayat Teachers and not in the matters relating to appointment of Panchayat 6 Shiksha Mitra. As per guidelines relating to appointment of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra only the District Magistrate was the competent authority for passing such order. I also find that the initial appointment of the petitioners as Panchayat Shiksha Mitra was challenged by the unsuccessful candidates for a long delay. The period for such challenging order within 30 days, on this count also the complaint filed by the unsuccessful candidates should not have been entertained at all. For all these reasons, the order contained in Annexure-4 dated 27.8.2008 is quashed. The writ applications are allowed. Respondent authorities are directed to make payment of entire arrears of salary to the petitioners. The petitioners should also be paid their current month to month salary without any objection or hindrance. (Mridula Mishra,J.) A.Kumar