IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.1621 of 2010 LALAN PRASAD, son of Shri Lal Bahadur Prasad, resident of village + P.O.- Bahrauli Kunwar Tola, P.S. Mashrak, District- Saran. …Respondent no.10…Appellant. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. The Principal Secretary, Human Resource Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Director, Primary Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 4. The District Magistrate, Saran at Chapra. 5. The District Superintendent of Education, Saran at Chapra. 6. The Block Development Officer, Mashrak, District- Saran. 7. The Block Education Extension Officer, Mashrak, District- Saran. 8. The Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Raj Bahrauli, Block Bahrauli, District- Saran. 9. The Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Raj, Bahrauli, District- Saran. ...Respondents-Respondent 1st set. 10. Brenjit Kumar Prasad, son of Shri Ram Prasad, R/o Village + P.O. Bahrauli, P.S. Mashrak, District- Saran. Presently working as Panchayat Teacher in Primary School, Kuer Tola, Block-Mashrak, District- Saran at Chapra. …Petitioner- Respondent 2nd set. ----------- 03- 7.1.2011 Heard Mr. Sanjay Kumar Verma for the appellant, Mr. Avanindra Kumar Jha, learned Assistant Counsel to Government Pleader No.18 for the State of Bihar and its functionaries, and Mr. S.B.K. Manglam for respondent no.10. 2 2. The writ petitioner Brenjit Kumar Prasad, who is respondent no.10 in this appeal, was appointed as Panchayat Shiksha Mitra and subsequently regularized as Panchayat Teacher in the year 2006 in view of Bihar Panchayat Elementary Teachers (Appointment and Service Condition) Rules, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the “Rules’). Thereafter a complaint was made in the year 2008 by the present appellant against the selection of the writ petitioner as Shiksha Mitra. The District Superintendent of Education got enquiry done in the matter and based on the enquiry directed the termination of the appointment of the writ petitioner (Brenjit Kumar Prasad). This Court held that the District Superintendent of Education was not the competent authority, who could not have taken action for termination of writ petitioner’s service. Rule 18 of the Rules provides that the complaint has to be made to the Block Development Officer concerned who would be the competent officer to pass order of termination. 3. The aforesaid issue has been authoritatively decided in the case of Alok Kumar and others vs. The State of Bihar and others, reported in 2009(2) P.L.J.R. 929. In that view of the matter, the learned Single Judge has set aside the termination order of the writ petitioner. 3 4. The appellant states that the District Superintendent of Education has merely made recommendations for the termination and he did not pass the termination order. This issue has been addressed by the learned Single Judge. We, therefore, entirely agree with the reasoning given by the learned Single Judge. In this view of the matter, we do not find any merit in this appeal and is accordingly dismissed. (S K Katriar, J.) (S.P. Singh, J.) S.K.Pathak/