IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15547 of 2007 PANKAJ KUMAR SINGH & ORS Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS WITH CWJC No.15793 of 2007 AJAY KUMAR RAJHANS & ORS Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 06 31.3.2009 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel for the State. A common question of law is involved in both the writ applications and, therefore they have both been heard together and are being disposed by a common order. Allegations were made with regard to the appointment of the petitioners on the post of Panchayat Shikshak. The District Magistrate on 1.9.2007 directed the Block Development Officer to enquire and report. To that extent, no error can be found in the direction of the District Magistrate as the B.D.O. is the statutory authority under Rule 18 of the Bihar Panchayat Elementary Teachers (Employment and Service Condition) Rules, 2006. The report of the statutory authority, the B.D.O. came to be submitted on 20.9.2007 which was not to the satisfaction of the District Magistrate, Banka. 2 He, therefore, directed a fresh enquiry by an authority having no jurisdiction to do so under the Bihar Panchayat Elementary Teachers (Employment and Service Condition) Rules, 2006. When an enquiry report favourable to him came to be submitted, the District Magistrate on 20.11.2007 directed the statutory authority, the B.D.O., to pass orders for cancellation of the appointment which followed on 21.11.2007. The B.D.O., in the impugned order, in the very opening lines states that the order was being issued in terms of the directions of District Magistrate. Learned counsel for the petitioner is right in his submission that the District Magistrate is not a statutory authority under the Bihar Panchayat Elementary Teachers (Employment and Service Condition) Rules, 2006. Any order of the statutory authority, that is the B.D.O., contrary to his own earlier report dated 20.9.2007 ( and which has statutory force) at the behest of or dictates of another is vitiated by non-application of mind rendering it arbitrary and amounting to abdication of jurisdiction. It is accordingly not sustainable. If an authority be needed for the 3 proposition, reference may be made to the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in 2004 (2) SCC page 65 (Bahadursinh Lakhubhai Gohil Versus Jagdishbhai M. Kamalia and Others) holding as follows in paragraph-26 of the same. “It is also well settled that if any decision is taken by a statutory authority at the behest or on the suggestion of a person who has no statutory role to play, the same would be ultra vires. (See Commr. Of Police v. Gordhandas Bhanji and Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commr.)” This Court has come across several orders passed by authorities not competent to do so under the Bihar Panchayat Elementary Teachers (Employment and Service Condition) Rules, 2006 and which have already been declared to be invalid by separate orders of this court. Nonetheless such non-statutory authorities insist on passing orders contrary to the law laid down by this Court generating unnecessary, unwanted and avoidable litigation by sheer abuse of administrative powers. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Chief Secretary of the State of Bihar for his consideration and appropriate consequential administrative action so that this Court, already over burdened, is saved the burden of further unnecessary and avoidable 4 litigation. The impugned orders dated 20.11.2007 and 21.11.2007 are accordingly set aside. The writ applications stand allowed. P.K. (Navin Sinha, J.)