IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.232 of 2011 Lalita Kumari, W/o Sri Baidhyanath Yadav, resident of village Chaudharana, P.S. Rajnagar, District Madhubani--------------petitioner Versus 1.The State of Bihar 2.The Principal Secretary, Human Resource Deptt. Govt. of Bihar, Patna 3.The Director Primary Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 4.The District Magistrate Madhubani, District Madhubani 5.The District Superintendent of Education Madhubani, District Madhubani 6.The Block Development Officer, Rajnagar, District Madhubani 7.The Block Education Extension Officer, Rajnagar, District Madhubani 8.The Mukhiya, Kaithahi Gram Panchayat, P.S.Rajnagar, District Madhubani 9.The Secretary, Gram Panchayat Raj Kaithahi, P.S.Rajnagar, District Madhubani 10.The Member, District Teacher Appointment Appellate Authority, Madhubani----------------------------------------------------------respondents ----------- For the petitioner :M/S S.N.Yadav, Saroj Kumar,Advocates For the State :A.C. to G.P.10 ------ 2. 25.7.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner has come to this Court for quashing the order dated 20.8.2010 passed in Appeal Case No. 35/05 of 2009 by the District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority, Madhubani by which the Appellate Authority has rejected the appeal of the petitioner. The petitioner applied for selection on the post of Shiksha Mitra against an advertisement of the year 2005 for Gram Panchayat Raj Kaithahi, District Madhubani and 2 the petitioner was not selected. Against the same the petitioner filed C.W.J.C.No.7453 of 2008 which was disposed of by an order dated 7.5.2008 with a liberty to the petitioner to move before the Block Development Officer who was the competent authority under Rule 18 of the Bihar Panchayat Primary Teachers (Appointment and Service Condition) Rules, 2006. The petitioner moved before the Block Development Officer, who, by his order dated 12.8.2008 rejected the claim of the petitioner. Against the same the petitioner filed C.W.J.C.No.2989 of 2009 before this Court which was permitted to be withdrawn to avail the statutory remedy with the observation that learned counsel for the petitioner after some submission does accept the position that in view of the new rules which have been laid down by the State of Bihar in the matters of non-selection or illegal selection on the post of teacher she should be given liberty to challenge the impugned order as contained in Annexure-4 before the Tribunal constituted in this regard by the order dated 5.3.2009. The petitioner thereafter filed the Appeal Case No. 35/05 of 2009 before the District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority, Madhubani which has 3 by the impugned order dated 20.8.2010 rejected the appeal of the petitioner. Under the Bihar Panchayat Primary Teachers (Appointment and Service Condition) Rules, 2006 by the original Rule 18 the Block Development Officer was constituted as the competent authority to hear all complaints in the matter relating to appointment of teacher. By the amendment of the Rules by a State Government Notification No. 3148 dated 25.8.2008 the District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority was made the competent authority under Rule 18. It is evident that the order of the Block Development Officer passed on 12.8.2008 was an order passed by the competent authority under Rule 18 as it then existed. That order was a final order unless set aside by this Court in writ proceedings. No such jurisdiction has been conferred upon the District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority to again hear a finally concluded matter by an order of the Block Development Officer and any such order passed by the District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority would be an order without jurisdiction. 4 In the above circumstances, the order dated 20.8.2010 passed by the District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority has to be held to be without jurisdiction and it is accordingly set aside. Learned counsel for the petitioner made a prayer that the order of the Block Development Officer should also be set aside. In my view, the petitioner having withdrawn the earlier writ petition being C.W.J.C.No.2989 of 2009 cannot be permitted to again challenge the same order in fresh writ proceedings when no such liberty had been granted to the petitioner by this Court. The writ application is, accordingly, disposed of in terms of the aforesaid observations. (Ramesh Kumar Datta,J.) Spal/