IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9533 of 2008 UMESH PRASAD GUPTA, S/O SRI JAGNARAYAN PRASAD GUPTA, R/O VILLAGE-PANAPUR LANGA, P.S.- HAJIPUR SADAR, DISTRICT-VAISHALI.…PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, VAISHALI AT HAZIPUR. 3. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, VAISHALI AT HAZIPUR. 4. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, HAZIPUR, DISTRICT-VAISHALI. 5. THE MUKHIYA, SMT. MAHASUNDAR DEVI, GRAM PANCHAYAT PANAPUR LANGA, VILLAGE-PANAPUR LANGA, P.S.-HAZIPUR SADAR (EAST), DISTRICT-VAISHALI. …………RESPONDENTS. ----------- 2 27.09.2011 I.A.No.6305 of 2011 This I.A. has been filed by one Poonam KUmari to intervene in the matter as respondent on the ground that on her application the District Collector had passed the impugned order cancelling the appointment of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner had obtained his appointment as Shiksha Mitra in 2003 on a forged caste certificate. The I.A. is allowed. Let the said Poonam Kumari be treated as party respondent no.6 in this writ application. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the intervener, learned counsel for the State and 2 learned counsel for the respondent no.5. In this writ application petitioner has challenged an order of the District Collector, Vaishali contained in his letter dated 08.03.2008 addressed to the Block Development Officer in which he has held that the petitioner had obtained his appointment as Shiksha Mitra against the vacancy for Most Backward Female Category by producing a false caste certificate. Hence he has cancelled his appointment and has directed for institution of criminal case against him. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after the 2006 Rules came into force, the District Collector had no authority to hold an inquiry and pass any orders in respect of appointment or otherwise of the Panchayat Teachers. He submits that in the Rules, the District Collector has not been given any power at all under any provision in this regard. In support of this submission learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgments of this Court in the case of Sunil Kumar Ojha & Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. [2009 (3) PLJR 48] and in the case of Alok Kumar Vs. State of Bihar 3 & Ors. [2009 (2) PLJR 929]. The question of the petitioner having obtained appointment on the forged certificate is a question of fact. However, learned counsels for the respondents have not been able to demonstrate from the Rules that the District Collector has any authority under the Rules to pass any orders in respect of any Panchayat Teachers. In the circumstances, only on the ground of want of jurisdiction, the said order of the District Collector, as contained in Annexure-6, is quashed. The District Collector is directed to transmit the complaint of respondent no.6 along with all supporting documents to the Appellate Authority, constituted under the Rules in terms of 2008 amendment, within four weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. On receipt of the records, the Appellate Authority shall issue notice to the petitioner, respondent no.6 and all other concerned parties, giving them opportunity to be heard, shall call for the original records, including the caste certificate of the petitioner, shall also call for a report 4 from any other agency for verification of the actual caste of the petitioner and shall pass orders positively within three months from the date of receipt of the records from the office of the District Collector. However, till the final orders are passed by the Appellate Authority petitioner shall not be entitled to re-join his post and shall not be entitled for his salary. Arvind/ ( J.N. Singh, J.)