IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12116 of 2008 AFTAB AHMAD son of Md. Shamsul Alam, resident of At & P.O.Songarhwa P.S.Phulwaria District Gopalganj. Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Commissioner-cum- Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2.Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3.Director, Primary Education, Human Resources Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 4.District Magistrate, Gopalganj. 5.District Superintendent of Education, Gopalganj. 6.Block Development Officer, Phulwaria, Dist.Gopalganj 7.Block Education Extension Officer,Phulwaria Dist.Gopalganj. 8.Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Raj Bairagi Tola Phulwaria Dist.Gopalganj. 9.Mukhiya Gram Panchayat Raj Bairagi Tola, Phulwaria Dist.Gopalganj. ----------- 2 11.9.2009. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the State. Petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 23.7.2008 contained in Memo no.143, passed by District Magistrate, Gopalganj whereby he has removed the petitioner from the post of Panchayat Teacher in Rajkiye Prathmik Vidyalay, Kunwar bathua, Gram Panchayat Raj, Bairagi Tola in the district of Gopalganj. Further prayer is for quashing the order dated 1.8.2008 contained in Memo no.213, issued by Block Education Extension Officer, Phulwaria Prakhand, Gopalganj, who as per direction of the District Magistrate, has relieved the petitioner from the post and also directed to deposit the entire amount of his salaries in the account of Secretary, Gram Panchayat Raj, Bairagi Tola, Gopalganj. The petitioner has also prayed for a direction to the respondents to reinstate him on the post of Panchayat teacher in the same school. The impugned orders have been challenged by the petitioner on different grounds. One of the ground is that after petitioner’s absorption on the post of Panchayat Teacher, the order passed by the District Magistrate, Gopalganj for termination of his service is completely without jurisdiction as under 2006 Rule the Block Development Officer is competent authority to pass an order in exercise of his jurisdiction independently after full application of his 2 mind. In the present case, the Block Development Officer has not passed any order. Whatever order has been passed by the authorities is on the basis of direction issued by the District Magistrate. Another ground which has been taken by the petitioner for challenging the impugned order is that the Collector has passed the order without even assigning any opportunity to the petitioner to defend his case or giving opportunity of filing show cause. Since the petitioner has already been appointed and his valuable right of employment is going to be taken, it was incumbent on the part of the authority to issue notice to the petitioner and assign opportunity of hearing. The impugned order has been challenged on the ground that it has been passed in violation of rule of natural justice. It has been submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that on perusal of the letter issued by the Block Education Extension Officer reporting the matter to the B.D.O. in the light of the direction of the Collector, it is apparent that so called interpolation made in the selection list is not going to be benefited to the petitioner, rather on account of cutting, the earlier higher wattage of marks given to the petitioner were reduced. Sa far Rajiv Kumar is concerned, who is said to have 15 wattage marks should not be appointed as he had not filed any certificate to show his claim for appointment under most backward category. On account of non production of his caste certificate, the petitioner was a single candidate in that category having 14 wattage and no illegality was committed in case of his appointment. On perusal of the order passed by the Collector, Annexure-10, it transpires that Rajiv Kumar, in any case, was not going to be appointed even, in case, the petitioner is terminated from his service in the light of the letter issued by the Director, Primary Education dated 7.8.2006. The Director, Primary Education, Bihar, Patna by this letter had directed not to appoint any one on the post of Panchayat Siksha Mitra as this post has become non existent. Considering submission of the counsel for the petitioner and also the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State, I 3 am of the view that the impugned orders passed by the authority for termination of petitioner’s service contained in Annexures-10, 11 and 12 are quashed. This application is allowed. The respondent Block Education Extension Officer, Phulwaria, Gopalganj, being the competent authority is directed to reinstate the petitioner on his postin Rajkiye Prathmik Vidyalay, Kunwar Bathua, Gram Panchayat Raj, bairagi Tola in the District of Gopalganj with all consequential benefits. The entire amount of salary, which has been deposited by the petitioner, as per direction of the authority, is directed to be refunded to the petitioner within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. Sss/- (Mridula Mishra, J)