IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4265 of 2008 1. PRIYAM KUMARI, WIFE OF SRI RANJIT SINGH, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA – NEW MARKET AMOLA TOLA, P.S. + DISTRICT – KATIHAR. 2. PAWAN KUMAR, SON OF SRI ANIL KUMAR PODDAR, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE –HAFLAGANJ, P.S. MUFFASSIL KATIHAR, DISTRICT – KATIHAR. 3. USHA KUMARI, DAUGHTER OF SRI RAMESHWAR SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE – SANJALIBARI, P.S. MANSAHI, DISTRICT – KATIHAR. 4. AMAR NATH CHAUDHARY, SON OF SRI SITARAM CHAUDHARY, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE – KURAITHA, P.S. MANSAHI, DISTRICT – KATIHAR. 5. CHANDAN KUMARI, DAUGHTER OF SRI JAYKANT MEHTA, WIFE OF SRI PANKAJ KUMAR, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE – KHIRIJHAT, P.S. KAHALGAON, DISTRICT – BHAGALPUR. 6. KUMARI CHHAYA, DAUGHTER OF LATE SHIVLAL PANDIT, WIFE OF SRI CHANDRADEO RAY, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA – LOHIYA NAGAR, BARMASIA, P.S. + DISTRICT – KATIHAR. ……… PETITIONERS. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. THE COMMISSIONER-CUM- SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, KATIHAR. 4. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, KATIHAR. 5. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, MANSAHI, DISTRICT – KATIHAR. 6. THE BLOCK EDUCATION EXTENSION OFFICER, PRANPUR WEST, DISTRICT – KATIHAR. 7. THE PANCHAYAT SECRETARY OF GRAM PANCHAYAT KURAITHA, P.S. MANSAHI, DISTRICT – KATIHAR. 8. THE MUKHIYA OF GRAM PANCHAYAT KURAITHA, P.S. MANSAHI, DISTRICT – KATIHAR. …………. RESPONDENTS. ----------- 09/ 06.05.2010 Heard counsel for the petitioners and counsel appearing for the State. I.A. No. 2433 of 2010 was filed by the petitioners for quashing of order contained in Memo No. 244/09 dated15.9.2009 passed by the District Teachers Employment Appellate Tribunal, Katihar, whereby direction had been issued to appoint one Md. Jahangir as Panchayat - 2 - teacher. Md. Jahangir was the appellant before the Appellate Authority, Katihar. Initially the petitioners’ prayer was for quashing of the order contained in Memo No. 1084 dated 26.3.2007 issued by the District Superintendent of Education, Katihar and also the consequential order contained in letter no. 135 dated 12.4.2007 issued by the Block Education Extension Officer, Pranpur (West), Katihar, whereby the petitioners’ appointment on the post of Panchayat teacher in the Primary Schools of Gram Panchayat, Kuraitha has been cancelled. The petitioners’ prayer was also for a direction to make payment of arrears of salary, which is due since 22.6.2007 till date. The impugned orders were challenged by the petitioners on the ground that the D.S.E. and the Block Education Extension Officer have no jurisdiction to pass such orders. Under Rule 18 of 2006 Rules the Block Development Officer was the Appellate Authority, but Block Development Officer submitted report not as per his own discretion but on direction of the District Magistrate. All the impugned orders were challenged by the petitioners being without jurisdiction. So far order passed by the - 3 - Appellate Tribunal is concerned, the petitioners assailed this order on the ground that they were not noticed, not impleaded as party and in their absence the impugned order was passed. Considering the objections raised by the petitioners and the statement made in the counter affidavit of the State, I find that the orders 26.3.2007 and 12.4.2007 issued by the District Superintendent of Education, Katihar and the Block Education Extension Officer, Pranpur (West), Katihar were against the statutory provision. In case any objection regarding illegality and irregularity in the appointment was there, the only competent authority was the Block Development Officer as per the Rule. The order cancelling the appointment could have been passed by him only. The appellate order is also bad as it has been passed in violation of rule of natural justice. The impugned orders contained in Memo No. 1084 dated 26.3.2007 (Annexure-11), the consequential order contained in letter no. 135 dated 12.4.2007 (Annexure-12) and the appellate order dated 15.9.2009 contained in Memo No. 244/09 (Annexure-10) are quashed. - 4 - This writ application is allowed. However, the allegations have been made regarding irregularity in the appointment, as such it is desirable that a proper enquiry should be conducted in this matter. The District Teachers Employment Appellate Tribunal, Katihar is directed to issue notice in this regard to all concerned including the Mukhiya, Panchayat Secretary and the appointees, which also includes the petitioners, giving proper opportunity to them, considering the records connected with the appointment in the concerned Gram Panchayat and looking into relevant records, may pass order within 60 days from the date of communication/production of this order, either by the Block Development Officer, Mansahi or by any of the petitioners. The petitioners may take this precaution that the impugned order must be communicated to the Tribunal within one month from today. Whatever the order passed by the Tribunal, that will decide the fate of the petitioners as well as other applicants. DKS/ (Mridula Mishra, J.)