JUDGEMENT 1. Heard the parties. 2. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 28.6.2008, contained in Annexure-4, whereby his services as Panchayat Shiksha Mitra have been terminated. 3. Petitioner was engaged as Panchayat Shiksha Mitra on 5.3.2003, which was a contract for eleven months. Thereafter, he started his duties as Panchayat Shiksha Mitra. Upon completion of contractual period of eleven months his term was extended for further eleven months on 1.4.2004 and again on 25.5.2006. Whiie the petitioner was working as Panchayat Shiksha Mitra, the Bihar Panchayat Primary Teacher (Employment and Service Conditions) Regulation, 2006 (hereinafter to be referred to as "Regulation 2006") came into force with effect from 1.7.2006 and the petitioner was absorbed as Panchayat Teacher. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that thereafter the respondent no. 4, the concerned Block Development Officer, Sadar, Chapra, has cancelled the appointment of two Shiksha Mitras by the order dated 28.6.2008, as contained in Annexure-4. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner challenges such action chiefly on two grounds. Firstly, the petitioner was twice given extension as Panchayat Shiksha Mitra and thereafter absorbed as Panchayat Teacher, and, thus, the cancellation of his engagement as Panchayat Shiksha Mitra is totally irrelevant by now. Secondly, the impugned order is non-speaking as only en the basis of certain irregularities it appears that the impugned order has been passed. It has been specifically stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order has been passed in complete violation of the Principle of Natural Justice, as no notice or show-cause notice was ever served on him and everything was done behind his back. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance upon two decisions of this Court rendered in Ashok Kumar and Others vs. The State of Bihar and Others (2009(2) Patna Law Journal Reports, 929) and Rinku Kumari @ Smt. Rinku Devi vs. The State of Bihar and Others [2010(4) Patna Law Journal Reports, 113] to impress upon this Court that initially the engagement of the petitioner as Panchayat Shiksha Mitra could have been challenged only within 30 days of the selection/appointment if a complaint was made and thereafter the concerned authority was authorised to enquire and cancel such appointment. However, in the present case, the petitioner was granted extension twice and ultimately he was absorbed as Panchayat Teacher after commencement of the Regulation 2006. 6. However, in the present case, the petitioner was granted extension twice and ultimately he was absorbed as Panchayat Teacher after commencement of the Regulation 2006. 6. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent no. 4. However, no positive stand with regard to the discrepancy in the appointment of the petitioner has been pointed out. The only thing has been indicated that the Panchayat Secretary has expressed some doubt about the genuineness of the certificate of the petitioner. However, no positive stand has been taken by the Block Development Officer concerned, respondent no. 4, as to whether any detailed inquiry has been made in this regard or how has he come to the conclusion that the petitioners certificates and marksheets were manipulated or forged. Secondly, there is no categorical statement in the counter affidavit to the effect that any opportunity for being heard was given to the petitioner or any notice or show-cause was served upon him. 7. in above view of the matter, since no opportunity of hearing has been granted by the concerned authority to the petitioner before passing the order of cancellation of the appointment of the petitioner as Panchayat Shiksha Mitra, in the opinion of this Court, the impugned order, as contained in Annexure-4, cannot be sustained in law. 8. As a result, this writ application is allowed and the impugned order dated 28.6.2008, as contained in Annexure-4, is hereby set aside, as a consequence of which, the petitioner is reinstated in service as Panchayat Teacher with all consequential benefit. However, if the authority concerned is of the opinion that the petitioner has been appointed on the basis of certain forged documents, then it would be open to the concerned authority to make a detailed inquiry and this order will not preclude the authority concerned in passing an appropriate order strictly in accordance with law and after following the Principle of Natural Justice.