JUDGEMENT 1. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing for the State. 2. Petitioner has filed this application for quashing the order dated 14.2.2008 passed by the Collector, Gopalganj whereby the appointment of the petitioner on the post of Panchayat Shikcha Mitra in Gram Panchayat Raj, Sisai has been held illegal and ail consequential benetits which the petitioner got on the basis of appointment has also been held illegal. The Mukhiya of the Gram Panchayat Raj, Sisai, Block- Bhorey has been directed to cancel petitioners appointment. In the writ application, it has been stated by the petitioner that the consequential orders issued by the Mukhiya of Gram Panchayat Raj, Sisai has not been communicated to the petitioner till today but he has been stopped from working on the post of teacher. 3. Petitioners case is that he was appointed on the post of Panchayat Shikcha Mitra on 25.5.2004 and gave his joining on 26.5.04 in Rajkiya Prathmik Vidyalaya, Sisai (Uttar Tola). He continued on this post for 11 months period which is the fixed period of engagement, on the post of Panchayat Shikcha Mitra. One Binod Mishra filed a complaint before the District Magistrate, Gopalganj against the appointment of petitioner on the post of Panchayat Shikcha Mitra which was dismissed. Subsequently, Binod Mishra filed writ application. Petitioners case is that Binod Mishra did not implead the petitioner as party in the Miscellaneous Case which was filed before the Collector and in the writ application. The writ application filed by Binod Mishra alongwith several similar matters were heard analogous and disposed of giving direction to the concern District Magistrate to examine the matter and pass order in accordance with law. 4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner after expiry of first period of 11 months engagement as Panchayat Shikcha Mitra was re-engaged on two more occasions while his third engagement was still continuing, the State Government enacted Bihar Panchayat Teacher (Appointment and Service Condition) Rules. 2006 which became effective on 1.7.2006. Rule 20 of this Rule is a saving and deeming clause. Under this provision, all such Panchayat Shikcha Mitras who were working on the post on the appointed date were deemed to be absorbed on the post of Panchayat Teacher. Under this provision, the petitioner was also absorbed on the post of Panchayat Teacher. 2006 which became effective on 1.7.2006. Rule 20 of this Rule is a saving and deeming clause. Under this provision, all such Panchayat Shikcha Mitras who were working on the post on the appointed date were deemed to be absorbed on the post of Panchayat Teacher. Under this provision, the petitioner was also absorbed on the post of Panchayat Teacher. His service book has been opened and he is working on the sanctioned post as a Govt. employee. In the light of the direction issued in the writ application filed by the Binod Mishra, the District Magistrate, Gopalganj conducted an inquiry. In this inquiry, the petitioner was not impleaded as party. He was not noticed or given any opportunity to defend his case behind the back of the petitioner, impugned order was passed. 5. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the peculiarity of this order is that though this inquiry was conducted on the basis of complaint made by Binod Mishra, no relief has been given to Binod Mishra. On the other hand, the petitioner was not impleaded as party but he was been prevented from discharging his duty as a Panchayat Teacher. 6. Petitioner has assailed the order passed by the District Magistrate, Gopalganj on the ground that it is completely without jurisdiction and has been passed in violation of rules of natural justice. It has also been submitted by the petitioners counsel that since the complaint was made relating to petitioners first engagement as Panchayat Shikcha Mitra, as such, his absorption on the post of Panchayat Shikcha Mitra, consequential to his third engagement on the post of Shikcha Mitra, should not have been questioned by the District Magistrate. The order considering this fact is illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction. 7. Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a decision reported in 2009(2) PLJR 929 , specially on paragraphs-11 & 12 of the decision. It has been submitted that the reported decision and the case of petitioner is similar, circumstances are also similar and applicable in this case. 8. I find substance in the submission made by the petitioner. The order passed by the Collector, Gopalganj is fit to be quashed on all three counts on which the order has been assailed by the petitioner. It is illegal, arbitrary for the reason that Binod Mishras complaint was not against petitioners second and third engagement as Panchayat Shikcha Mitra. 8. I find substance in the submission made by the petitioner. The order passed by the Collector, Gopalganj is fit to be quashed on all three counts on which the order has been assailed by the petitioner. It is illegal, arbitrary for the reason that Binod Mishras complaint was not against petitioners second and third engagement as Panchayat Shikcha Mitra. Each engagement on the post of Panchayat Shikcha Mitra is an independent engagement of 11 months each. Second time when the petitioner was engaged on the post of Panchayat Shikcha Mitra, Binod Mishra did not ever apply for the post. He had not applied on the third occasion as well. So far petitioners absorption on the post of Panchayat Shikcha Mitra is concerned, it was consequential to his third engagement on Shikcha Mitra, on account of which he was working on the post on 1.7.2006. Since this engagement was under challenge, the Collector should not have passed any order, relating to termination of petitioners service as Panchayat Shikchak. Petitioners absorption as Panchayat Teacher was not a consequence of his first engagement on the post of Panchayat Shikcha Mitra, as such, Collectors direction for cancelling all consequential benefits, could not have been in terms of his absorption on Panchayat Teacher on the basis of his third engagement on post of Panchayat Shikcha Mitra. I find substance in the submission as petitioners absorption is not a consequential to his first engagement as Panchayat Shikcha Mitra. There is no reason for cancelling petitioners absorption as Panchayat Teacher. 9. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 14.2.2008 passed by the Collector, Gopalganj, and consequential order, if any already passed by the Mukhiya Gram Panchayat Raj Sasai in existence though not communicated to the petitioner, are quashed. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner on the post with consequential benefits including his arrears of salary for the period he has not been allowed to work on the post in compliance of the direction of Collector, Gopalganj.