JUDGEMENT 1. The 16 petitioners have challenged the order dated 14.2.2008 passed by the B.D.O., as contained in Annexure-5, by which services of all the petitioners as Panchayat Teachers in different Panchayats of Gram Panchayat Raj Biuni Andama falling under the Bahadurpur Block, district of Darbhanga have been terminated. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that it was on telephonic instructions of the minister that orders were passed. Therefore, the same was without jurisdiction. He also submits that earlier the B.D.O. had held that appointments of the petitioners were valid. But, on the telephonic instructions of the minister, the District Magistrate issued orders for holding an enquiry in the matter of appointment of the petitioners and, on the basis of said orders, the B.D.O. had passed the impugned order of termination. He submits that the District Magistrate has no power to issue directions and B.D.O. has no power to pass orders for termination when once he has held that the appointments were valid and legal. 3. Learned counsel for the State submits that, on the orders of the District Magistrate an enquiry was held by the S.D.O., who submitted a detailed report, vide Annexure-B to the counter affidavit, to the District Magistrate. In the enquiry report, it was found that the appointment of the petitioners were illegal on different counts. Considering the said enquiry report, the District Magistrate issued directions on the basis of which the B.D.O. issued orders of termination. 4. When the case was taken up on 24.4.2008, learned counsel for the State was directed to seek instructions and file counter affidavit. However, while adjourning the matter, this Court directed that status quo, as existing on that day, to be maintained till 22.5.2008 which order was continued by order dated 23.5.2008. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that by virtue of the said status quo order, the petitioners are still functioning as Panchayat Teachers. 6. In the report, which is annexed as Annexure-B to the counter affidavit, this Court finds that many facts have been considered by the S.D.O. for coming to the conclusion that the appointment of the petitioners are illegal. The challenge to the same necessarily requires perusal of the original records and examination of facts. 7. Therefore, this Court feels it appropriate that the petitioners should be directed to file appeal before the concerned District Appellate Authority within one month from today. The challenge to the same necessarily requires perusal of the original records and examination of facts. 7. Therefore, this Court feels it appropriate that the petitioners should be directed to file appeal before the concerned District Appellate Authority within one month from today. If such appeals are filed by the petitioners before the Appellate Authority within the said time, the Appellate Authority shall take up the appeals on merits, without going into the question of limitation or without going into the question of maintainability of appeals in the light of the orders passed by the B.D.O., who was at that point of time the Appellate Authority. The appeals shall be considered strictly on merits and shall be decided in reference to the original records in respect of the appointment of the petitioners and the process of appointment adopted by the respondents. The appeals of the petitioners must be decided by the Appellate Authority within the time frame fix for decision of such matters in the Rules itself. 8. Since this Court had already directed the status quo to be maintained in the matter, the order of status quo shall continue till the appeals of the petitioners are finally decided by the Appellate Authority under this order.