IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12452 of 2008 Jamuna Mahto, son of Late Kapileshwar Mahto, resident of village Wajidpur, P.S. Manigachhi, District Darbhanga………………………………………………….Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. The Secretary – cum - Commissioner, Human Resources Development Department, Govt. of Bihar, New Secretariate, Patna. 3. The District Magistrate, Darbhanga. 4. The District Superintendent of Education, Darbhanga, District Darbhanga. 5. The District Deputy Superintendent of Education, Benipur, District Darbhanga. 6. The Block Development Officer, Manigachhi Block, District Darbhanga. 7. The Block Education Development Officer, Manigachhi Block, District Darbhanga. 8. The Mukhiya Wajidpur Gram Panchayat, Manigachhi Block, District Darbhanga. 9. The Panchayat Sewak-cum-Panchayat Secretary, Wajidpur Gram Panchayat, Manigachhi Block, District Darbhanga……………………………………………Respondents --------- 3 25.10.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the intervenor as well as learned counsel for the State. In this writ application petitioner has challenged the order of the Block Development Officer, Manigachhi contained in Memo No.692 dated 07.08.2008 (Annexure- 10) by which his services as Panchayat Teacher has been terminated. The order itself shows that the same has been issued only in the light of some letter of District Superintendent of Education, some 2 letter of the District Panchayat Raj Officer and one letter of Deputy Superintendent of Education. Under unamended Rule 18 of the 2006 Rules, it was the Block Development Officer, who had the jurisdiction to entertain complaint of an aggrieved party in respect of appointment of Panchayat Teachers and pass orders. This jurisdiction, conferred upon the Block Development Officer, necessarily required an independent application of mind by him to any complaint or any report or any fact appearing from the records. The impugned order of the Block Development Officer does not at all show that he had applied his independent mind. It is apparent from the impugned order that he simply passed orders in the light of the said letters of different authorities. In the circumstances, the impugned order is quashed. The Block Development Officer or the concerned authority is directed to transmit the entire records, including all the said letters and 3 reports, concerned with the appointment and matters in issue, to the statutory Appellate Authority constituted under the Rules after 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 all concerned parties including intervenor herein, shall call for the original records from the Panchayat and shall decide the matter finally in accordance with law by a speaking order positively within three months from the date of receipt of the records from the office of the Block Development Officer or the concerned authority. Since the matter is being directed to be transmitted to the Appellate Authority for its consideration and decision, this Court does not find any necessity to allow the intervention petition of one Sattan Ram as contained in I.A. No.7217 of 2011. The application is disposed of. However, the Appellate Authority 4 shall be obliged to issue notice to the said Sattan Ram, giving him a reasonable opportunity to be heard in the matter, before the matter is finally decided by it, as directed above. This writ application is disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. BT (J. N. Singh, J.)