JUDGEMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the District Superintendent of Education, Madhepura, respondent No. 4 instead of Block Development Officer, Bihariganj, respondent No. 5 who has issued the impugned order. 3. Prayer of the petitioner is for quashing the office order vide Memo No. 105 dated 18.4.2007 issued under the signature of Block Development Officer, Bihariganj and also the order dated 2.5.2007 issued by the Panchayat Secretary-cum-Panchayat Teachers Appointment Committee, Gram Panchayat, Babhangama, issued on the direction of the District Magistrate, Madhepura. 4. Petitioners case is that he applied for appointment on the post of Panchayat/Prakhand/Nagar Shikchak. A panel for counseling was prepared on 8.2.2007. The Committee constituted for appointment of Panchayat Teachers, issued letters to the candidates on 9.2.2007 for participating in counseling going to be held on 16.2.2007 with all original certificates. On 16.2.200/ the petitioner and 13 other candidates appeared before the Committee for counseling with all original certificates for its verification. The Selection Committee prepared a list of selected candidates on 17.2.2007. Petitioner was also selected for appointment. He was appointed as untrained teacher and posted in Girls Primary School, Babhangama vide appointment letter No. 14 dated 5.3.2007. On 8.3.2007, she gave her joining in school. She worked on the post for some month and in this regard, the Principal of the concerned school also issued an experience certificate in favour of the petitioner on 10.5.2007 (Annexure-11). The petitioner was informed by the Block Development Officer, Bihariganj by his order dated 18.4.2007 that on the oral direction of the District Magistrate, Madhepura, Panchayat Teachers Appointment for Gram Panchayat, Babhangama is going to be reviewed. This review was being done on account of an application filed by one Rekha Kumari before the District Magistrate making a complaint. This complaint was made by the candidate who did not participate in the counseling though she had better marks than the appointed candidates. The petitioner, thereafter, submitted her show-cause saying that the counseling was conducted after due notice to the candidates. If some of the candidates did not chose to participate in the counseling that cannot be a ground for cancellation of her appointment. In spite of petitioners show cause by impugned order, the Block Development Officer, Bihariganj has cancelled petitioners appointment. 5. Counsel for the petitioner submits that prior to counseling, a genera! If some of the candidates did not chose to participate in the counseling that cannot be a ground for cancellation of her appointment. In spite of petitioners show cause by impugned order, the Block Development Officer, Bihariganj has cancelled petitioners appointment. 5. Counsel for the petitioner submits that prior to counseling, a genera! notice was published in the daily newspaper informing the candidates regarding the date of counseling. It was also mentioned in this notice that if candidates will not participate in counseling on the date fixed, subsequently, their claim will not be entertained (Annexure-13). in spite of that, on the oral direction of District Magistrate, Madhepura, the Block Development Officer, Bihariganj has reopened the matter which is completely in violation of the Rules as well as the earlier notice published by the authority. It has also been submitted that under Panchayat Primary Teachers (Appointment & Service Condition) Rules, 2006, the District Magistrate of any district has not been vested with any power to reopen the appointments made by the competent authority. Under Rule 18 of 2006 Rules, it is the Block Development Officer who can receive any complaint, inquire into the matter after issuing proper notice to show casue to the interested persons, can pass any order. 6. From the impugned order, it is apparent that Block Development Officer himself has not even applied his mind in the matter simply passed the order. The order itself discloses that on the direction of the District Magistrate, the impugned order has been passed. The complaint of the candidate could have been entertained only when the information regarding the date of counseling could not have been made public or the candidates would not have been informed. Here the date of counseling was published in the newspaper for general information as well as necessary information was given to the candidates. In spite of that, if some one chose not to participate in the counselling, the appointment made on the basis of proper counselling could not have been reopened in spite of the fact that some one having better marks did not participate in the counseling. The order impugned is completely without jurisdiction and in violation of provision under Rule 2006, as such, it must be quashed. 7. Counter affidavit has been filed by the District Superintendent of Education who is not authorize to exercise any jurisdiction under 2006 Rules. The order impugned is completely without jurisdiction and in violation of provision under Rule 2006, as such, it must be quashed. 7. Counter affidavit has been filed by the District Superintendent of Education who is not authorize to exercise any jurisdiction under 2006 Rules. The Block Development Officer who has issued the impugned order did not file any counter affidavit. Even in the counter affidavit filed by the respondent no. 5, it is specifically mentioned that the Block Development Officer under the advice of the District Magistrate, has passed the impugned order. This admission makes it apparent that Block Development Officer has acted simply on advice of the District Magistrate. He has not exercised his independent mind. Impugned order is without jurisdiction as well passed in violation of provisions under rule. 8. For the reasons, specified, the impugned order dated 18.4.2007 contained in Memo No. 105 issued by the Block Development Officer. Bihariganj and the Panchayat Secretary is quashed. 9. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner on the post she was holding earlier. Respondent No. 9 Rekha Kumari was appointed illegally, her appointment is cancelled. 10. This application is allowed.