IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11040 of 2009 ====================================================== Md.Shamsul Haque, S/o Md. Asghar Ali, R/o Village Bharat Khand, P.O. Bharat Khand, Dist. Khagaria. .... .... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. District Magistrate, Khagaria. 3. S.D.O., Khagaria. 4. B.D.O., Parbatta, Khagaria. 5. Block Education Extension Officer, Parbatta, Khagaria. 6. Mukhia, Panchayat Raj, Saurh (South), Parbatta, Khagaria. 7. Panchayat Secretary, Saurh (South), Parbatta, Khagaria. 8. District Education Superintendent, Khagaria. .... .... Respondents ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MIHIR KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 4 08-05-2012 Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court does not find any error in the order of termination of the services of the petitioner passed by the Mukhia on 16.5.2008 and its affirmance by the District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority vide order dated 9.7.2009 in Appeal Case No. 184 of 2009, inasmuch as, it is the findings of the Tribunal that the appointment of the petitioner was wrongly made against the post exclusively reserved for female of backward category. In the entire writ petition, not a word has been said against this finding and, therefore, once the roaster and reservation has also been provided in the Panchayat Teachres Appointment Rules, 2006, any appointment made in violation of roaster and reservation cannot be sustained. Patna High Court CWJC No.11040 of 2009 (4) dt.08-05-2012 2 The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Mukhia had no power and jurisdiction to even correct such illegality or error committed in the appointment violating the rules of reservation and roaster, has to be only noted for its being rejected. Mukhia is the appointing authority of the post of Panchayat Teacher and if he had found that the appointment of the petitioner was wrongly made, he had rightly cancelled it. In any event, the petitioner had the opportunity to explain this aspect after the removal but, he had failed to do so and even before this Court, nothing has been said as with regard to the findings of his appointment being wrongly made against the post exclusively reserved for female of backward category. That being so, this Court does not find any error in the impugned order and this writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Rishi/- (Mihir Kumar Jha, J)