IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3542 of 2008 1. Gohan Chaudhary , Son of Late Saryug Chaudhary. 2. Faiyazuddin, Son of Shri Azimuddin. 3. Sarita Kumari, D/o Shri Vinod Kumar 4. Beauty Sinha, D/o Shri Vikas Kumar 5. Sarita Kumari, D/o Shri Rana Pratap. 6. Arun Kumar, Son of Shri Dhaneshwar Yadav. All resident of village-Pali, P.O.-Uraniya, District-Nawadah. …………Petitioners. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Commissioner & Secretary, Department of Human Resources Development, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The District Magistrate, Nawadah. 4. The District Superintendent of Education, Nawadah. 5. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Nawadah Sadar, Nawadah. 6. The Executive Magistrate, Nawadah Sadar, Nawadah. 7. The Block Development Officer, Kauakole, District-Nawadah. 8. The Block Education Extension Officer, Kauakole, District- Nawadah. 9. The Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat-Pali, Block-Kauakole, District- Nawadah. 10. The Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat , Pali, Block-Kauakole, District-Nawadah. ……….Respondents. For the Petitioners : Mr. Arun Kumar, Adv. Mr. Bipin Kumar, Adv. For the State: S.C. 12. ---------------- 2/ 14.01.2010 Petitioners were initially appointed on 26.11.2004 as Shiksha Mitra. On completion of eleven months of agreement they were given another extension. While, the petitioners were working on the post of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra the State Government enacted Bihar Panchayat Primary Teachers (Appointment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2006. Rule 20 (iii) of 2006 rules provided that all Panchayat Shiksha Mitra will be absorbed on the post of Panchayat Teacher with effect from 01.07.2006. Accordingly, the petitioners were also absorbed as 2 Panchayat Teacher from the date of the Notification of 2006 Rules i.e. 01.07.2006. Subsequently, on 13.12.2006 one of the applicants for the post of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra, made a complaint regarding the appointment of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra in the year 2004. On such complaints the Block Education Extension Officer, Kauakole, Nawadah, directed to hold and conduct an enquiry regarding the legality of appointment of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra in the year 2004. A report was submitted by the Block Education Extension Officer on 16.04.2007, stating that the reservation roster was not properly observed while appointing the Panchayat Shiksha Mitra. On the basis of this ex-parte enquiry, in which the petitioners, who had already absorbed on the post of Panchayat Teacher, were not noticed, the District Education Extension Officer, Nawadah passed the order dated 26.12.2007, canceling appointment of petitioners on the post of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra in the year 2004. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned order is completely illegal and without jurisdiction as by the time, enquiry was conducted and impugned order was passed, petitioners have already absorbed on the post of Panchayat Teachers. Bihar Panchayat Primary Teachers (Appointment and Service Condition) Rules, 2006 vested Block Development Officer with the power to terminate, transfer and pass any order in relation to the Panchayat Teachers. Except Block 3 Development Officer, under Rule 18 of 2006 Rules no one could have exercised this power. The District Superintendent of Education under 2006 rules had not been vested with power for passing such orders, regarding cancellation of appointment of Panchayat Teacher, as such, the impugned order is illegal and without jurisdiction. It is submitted by the petitioners’ counsel that petitioners’ first appointment in the year 2004 on the post of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra was under challenge. This period expired after eleven months. The petitioners were again, appointed for another eleven months. That appointment was never under challenge by any one, legality and propriety of that appointment was not enquired into by any one. There is no such enquiry report relating to petitioners’ appointment on the second occasion, even, if petitioners’ first appointment found to be illegal, their absorption on the post of Panchayat Teachers could not have been cancelled as it was on account of petitioners’ re- appointment for another eleven months under a fresh agreement on contractual basis. Petitioners have been absorbed on the post of Panchayat Teachers on account of remaining posts, on the post of Panchayat Teacher, on account of their second engagement. Counter affidavits have been filed on behalf of the State, wherein it is stated that the District Magistrate, Nawadah had directed to cancel all appointments of the Panchayat 4 Shiksha Mitra, on the basis of enquiry report submitted by the Block Education Extension Officer as the reservation roster was not observed. There is no whisper in the counter affidavit regarding competence of District Superintendent of Education for passing the impugned order. Considering the submissions made by the petitioners’ counsel and also the provision under Rule 18 of 2006 Rules as well as the guidelines relating to the appointment of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra, I find that the impugned order has been passed by the District Superintendent of Education, in violation of all provisions. The impugned order is completely without jurisdiction as well as it has been passed in violation of rule of natural justice as the petitioners were never noticed to participate in the enquiry. For all these reasons, the impugned order dated 26.12.2007 (Annexure-1) to the writ application, passed by the D.S.E. Nawadah, is quashed. This application is allowed. Respondents are directed to re-instate the petitioners on their respective posts, with effect from the date of their termination, with all consequential benefits. Sanjeet/ (Mridula Mishra, J.)