Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 23 (PAT)

Kavita Kumari v. State Of Bihar

2009-01-12

MRIDULA MISHRA

body2009
JUDGEMENT 1. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. By order, dated 1.1.2009, it was directed that C.W.J.C. No. 16914 of 2008 and C.W.J.C. No. 16954 of 2008 will be heard alongwith C.W.J.C. No. 12683 of 2007. That order is modified. C.W.J.C. No. 12683 of 2007 will be heard separately. 3. In this two writ applications (C.W.J.C. No. 16914 of 2008 and C.W.J.C. No. 16954 of 2008) have challenged the order, contained in Memo No. 17 dated 30.9.2008, whereby the Block Development Officer, Roh, has cancelled their appointment as Panchayat Teachers. The petitioners were appointed and started working as Panchayat Teachers since May, 2007. Their case is that the impugned order has been issued in violation of the principles of rule of natural justice as they were never noticed before issuance of the termination order. Further, it is submitted that the order terminating their service by the Block Development Officer is completely without jurisdiction as under Rule 18 of the amended Rules of 2008 whereby any appointment, the appeal can be heard and decided by a District Level Tribunal constituted by the State Government. 4. Petitioners were appointed as Panchayat Teacher under Bihar Panchayat Primary Teachers (Appointment and Service Condition) Rules, 2006. Under Rule 18 of 2006 Rules, the Block Development Officer was authorized to pass any order in respect of the appointment of teachers made under 2006 Rules 2006 Rules has been amended by Notification No. 3153, dated 25.8.2008, and it has come into effect from the date of publication in the gazette. So far impugned order is concerned, it has been passed by the Block Development Officer, Roh, on 30.9.2008, i.e., subsequent to the date of Notification of 2008 Rules. Under the amended Rules the Block Development Officer has no jurisdiction to pass any such order under Rule 18 of 2008 Rules only the Tribunal constituted by the State Government at the District Level can pass any such order. 5. No counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State. However, on comparison of Rules 2006 and 2008 Rules, it is apparent that submission made by the counsel for the petitioner has got force. 6. Considering these facts the impugned order, contained in Memo No. 17, dated 30.9.2008, passed by the Block Development Officer, Roh, Nawadah, is quashed. 5. No counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State. However, on comparison of Rules 2006 and 2008 Rules, it is apparent that submission made by the counsel for the petitioner has got force. 6. Considering these facts the impugned order, contained in Memo No. 17, dated 30.9.2008, passed by the Block Development Officer, Roh, Nawadah, is quashed. Petitioners will be deemed to be continuing on their post from the date of issuance of the termination order. Accordingly, they are also entitled for salary since October, 2008, i.e., the date of termination. 7. With the above observations and directions, these applications are allowed.