JUDGEMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Petitioner has challenged the order of termination issued by the Block Education Extension Officer, Belaganj which is Annexure-5 to the writ application. The appointment of the petitioner made in the year 2003 has been annulled by this order on the ground that persons with more marks have been ignored and the present petitioner has come to be appointed. The decision rendered in Annexure-5 has been affirmed by the cryptic order passed by the District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority, Gaya. 3. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Block Education Extension Officer has no power to cancel the appointment of the petitioner. If any wrong doing in the appointment was found he ought to have made recommendation to the authority who could have exercised power under 2006 Rules but he has not been vested with the power to give such direction. 4. If that be so, then the order passed by the appellate authority basing its decision on the decision rendered by the Block Education Extension Officer is also erroneous. Both Annexures-5 and 6 are quashed. However, it is left to the concerned authority that if the enquiry of the Block Education Extension Officer does indicate overwhelming material of wrong doing in the appointment then it is left to the authority to take a decision on the issue of the petitioner. 5. This writ application is allowed.