IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 6942 of 2009 Reyaz Ahmad, son of Md. Israil village – Bhataura, P.O. – Bhataura,P.S. – Bisfi, District-Madhubani …………………… Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Vikas Bhawan, Patna 2. Commissioner, Darbhanga Division, Darbhanga 3. District Magistrate, Madhubani 4. Regional Deputy Director of Education, Darbhanga 5. District Superintendent of Education, Madhubani 6. Sub-divisional Education Officer, Madhubani 7. Gram Panchayat Raghauli, Anchal Bisfi, District Madhubani through the Secretary ……………………. Respondents ---------------------------------- 02. 29.08.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing for the State. Petitioner has filed this application for quashing of the order dated 27.08.2007, contained in Memo No. 2315, whereby the District Magistrate, Madhubani has cancelled petitioner’s appointment to the post of Panchayat Teacher. The impugned order has been passed by the District Magistrate, Madhubani, receiving complaints of irregularities, committed by the Selection Committee in the appointment of Panchayat Teachers. The District Magistrate directed the Block Education Extension Officer for conducting an enquiry and report. Receiving ex-parte enquiry report, submitted by the Block Education Extension Officer, the District 2 Magistrate has passed the impugned order, terminating the petitioner as Panchayat Teacher from his service. Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the impugned order passed by the District Magistrate is completely illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction. Under Bihar Panchayat Primary Teacher (Employment and Service Condition) Rules, 2006, the Block Development Officer is the competent authority for passing such order. Rule 17 of 2006 Rules, is very specific on this point that with regard to any complaint relating to appointment, transfer or termination of service of a Panchayat Teacher, Block Development Officer will pass an order. In the present case, the impugned order was passed by the District Magistrate, who is not competent to pass such an order and the other irregularity in the order is that the order of termination was issued without issuing any notice to the concerned Panchayat Teacher, whose valuable right and the opportunity of employment was going to be taken away on account of such order. Petitioner was terminated without even issuing any show-cause-notice to him, which is not 3 permissible in the eye of law. For the reasons stated above, the impugned order is held to be completely illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction, as such fit to be quashed. Accordingly, it is quashed. This Writ Application is allowed. SKM (Mridula Mishra, J.)