JUDGEMENT 1. Heard counsel for the petitioners and the State. 2. Petitioners were selected and appointed on the post of Panchayat Teacher in different Primary Schools in Poinwa in the district of Aurangabad. They are aggrieved as vide order of the Black Development Officer, Aurangabad contained in Memo No. 244 dated 1.10.2007 (Annexure- 7) they have been terminated from service of Panchayat Teacher. The Block Development Officer, in his order has held that massive irregularities were committed in the appointment. Counseling was done without proper notice to the applicants, persons having higher marks were not selected due to their non-participation in counseling, persons having lesser marks were appointed under different categories. 3. The ground which has been taken by the petitioners for assailing the impugned order is that it has been passed by the Biock Development Officer without applying his judicial mind in a mechanical manner simply relying on the order of the S.D.O., Aurangabad contained in Memo no. 2139 dated 26.9.2007. Though S.D.O. is not the appellate authority under Panchayat Teachers Appointment Rules, 2006 but his order is the basis for issuance of the termination order. The B.D.O. who is authorized to pass such orders, have not considered, whether in fact any irregularity was apparent, on the record. 4. From the counter affidavit it transpires that the enquiry was conducted by the S.D.O., Aurangabad on the direction of District Magistrate, Aurangabad as a written complaint was filed by the Vigilance Department. In the enquiry report of the S.D.O. basically this fact has been considered that empanelled candidates were not properly noticed for their participation in counseling, The Mukhia in connivance with other members of appointment committee, did not send notice to all empanelled candidates for their participation in counseling but only to those candidates, who were ready to pay the bribe money were given notice of counseling. Candidates having higher marks were not given notice. The enquiry report of S.D.O. relying on which the B.D.O. has passed the order of termination, also indicate that during enquiry registered notice was sent only to those candidates who earlier had not participated in the counseling but it is silent on this point whether persons who were appointed were also given an opportunity to explain the situation in which they were selected. 5. 5. Another ground which has been taken by the petitioner for quashing of the impugned order is that it has been passed in violation of the principle of natural justice. Petitioners being appointed as panchayat teachers joined at their place of posting and started discharging their duties. The vested right has accrued to the petitioners have been taken away by issuing termination order, without giving them proper notice to show cause. Petitioners case is that they were appointed observing the procedure envisaged under the rules for appointment. 6. Further it is submitted that impugned order is bad as the B.D.O., Aurangabad, personally did not enquire into the matter for which he was authorized under the Rules. In fact the impugned order, is order deemed to have been passed by the S.D.O. as on the basis of the report by him the impugned order has been passed. 7. Without going into the disputed question of facts what is obvious that the petitioners were not given opportunity for which they were entitled before passing any order against their interest, such as order terminating their services. Such order should have been passed only after giving them opportunity to explain the situation. 8. Since petitioners have been denied this opportunity, the impugned order contained in Annexure-7 cannot be held to have been passed in accordance with law. Accordingly the order passed by the B.D.O. contained in Annexure-7 dated 1.10.2007 is quashed. The B.D.O., Aurangabad is directed to pass order afresh only after giving proper opportunity to the petitioners as other candidates have already participated in the enquiry, petitioners and others who have been terminated from their service be noticed only after giving them opportunity to show cause, final order be passed within four weeks from the date of receipt/communication of this order. Petitioners, if found entitled for appointment, further orders be passed in this regard. 9. This application is accordingly, allowed.