Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J.—The Judgment, dated 12.07.2022, shall be re-posted on the web-site with the corrections. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. No one appears for the Government to assist the Court. 4. The petitioners by way of this writ petition assails the order dated 27th June, 2007 passed by the District Magistrate Patna, whereby it has been directed to cancel the appointments of the petitioners as Shiksha Mitra and further directed to reinstate the earlier appointed Shiksha Mitra on their post. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the order has been passed referring to writ CWJC9 788 of 2004, Amresh Kumar and others vs. State. Although there were no orders passed in the said writ petition for the removal of petitioner. The said respondents had challenged their removal before the High Court. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner were impleaded as party respondent. Later the writ petition was dismissed subsequently by the High Court vide order dated 07.12.2010. 5. Learned counsel further submits that the District Magistrate Patna had no jurisdiction to set aside the appointments of the petitioners as by the then Panchayat Teachers, Rule 2006 had come into force and all the Shiksha Mitra who were holding the post as on 1st July, 2006 were deemed to be Panchayat Teachers. The jurisdiction to remove such Panchayat Teacher vested with the B.D.O. and not with the District Magistrate and, therefore, the order dated 27th June, 2007, was without jurisdiction. He relied on the judgment passed by this Court in 2014(2) PLJR, 665 (Smt. Renu Kumari Pandey vs. the State of Bihar & Ors.) to submit that all the existing Shiksha Mitra were deemed to have been absorbed and no specific order was required to be passed. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioners were not given any opportunity of hearing before passing of the order dated 27.10.2012 and, therefore, the order deserves to be set aside. He submits that the petitioners were working since 2004 and worked for about three years. 6. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 8 to 10 submit that the respondents had been appointed as Shikshha Mitra vide Annexure-2 and were regularly working on the said post. He submits that the petitioners were working since 2004 and worked for about three years. 6. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 8 to 10 submit that the respondents had been appointed as Shikshha Mitra vide Annexure-2 and were regularly working on the said post. However, the concerned Mukhiya by an illegal order proceeded to terminate the services of the respondents and two others vide order, dated 12th June, 2004, without giving them an opportunity of hearing and by an illegal method without conducting any selection process, proceeded to appoint the petitioners and two others on the post held by the respondents on 10th July, 2004. 7. Being aggrieved of such appointment and removal from post, the respondents submitted a representation to the District Magistrate and also preferred a writ petition before the High Court being C.W.J.C. No. no. 9788 of 2004 (Amresh Kumar and Ors. Vrs. the State of Bihar & Ors.). While the said writ petition was pending the impugned order was passed by the District Magistrate who after examining the entire selection process conducted by the Mukhiya, reached to the conclusion about the wrongful termination of the respondents and at the same time appointing the petitioners wrongfully and especially those who were closely related to the members of the Mukhiya and other ward members. 8. Learned counsel pointed out in his counter affidavit about the petitioners and others being closely related to the Mukhiya. It is stated that one daughter of Mukhiya, namely, Soni Kumari, was appointed in place of the respondents, another Aash Narain Yadav was appointed who was cousin of Mukhiya and daughter-in-law of ward member of War N o. 18, namely, Soni Kumari had been selected as Siksha Mitra without following any due process of selection. The services of the respondents were wrongly terminated. Resultantly in 2006 at the time of absorption the petitioners were absorbed instead of the respondents. Learned counsel has further submitted that the dismissal of their writ petition on 07.12.2010 was taken-up by them in review and this Court vide its order, dated 18.05.2011 clarified that no order has been passed on the claim of the petitioners therein and the review application was disposed off. It was pointed out in review that the petitioners grievance had already been redressed and the writ petition should have been dismissed as not pressed. 9. It was pointed out in review that the petitioners grievance had already been redressed and the writ petition should have been dismissed as not pressed. 9. Learned counsel submits that in cases where the appointment has been found to be made arbitrarily and the Court reaches to the conclusion that there is malpractice and fraud played making appointments, the principles of natural justice would have no application. The appointment suffers from patent illegality and the Court would correct the same. He relies on the judgment passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 6895 of 2013 decided on 25th April, 2016, and also relies further on the appeal preferred against the said judgment which has been dismissed and reported in 2017 (2) PLJR, 143. It has further been submitted that the respondents have been reinstated and they are continuing on the post since 4th July, 2007 and are working as Panchayat Teachers. 10. This Court finds that a counter affidavit was filed by respondent no. 4 and it is stated that an enquiry was conducted at the level of the District Magistrate, Patna, about the selection of the petitioners and after being satisfied that the rules and guidelines have not been followed by the Mukhiya, the selection of the petitioners was cancelled. It is further stated that the District Magistrate, Patna, is the competent authority to pass orders about the Panchayat Siksha Mitra in the district. He is the appointing authority and, therefore, has the inherent power to cancel the selection also. It is stated that an order was passed by the Deputy Director, Primary Education, Bihar, on 1st February, 2007, that if any person has been found to have been wrongfully appointed he may be removed from the post but no fresh Panchayat Siksha Mitra can be appointed after coming into force of the Panchayat Teachers Appointment Rules, 2006. 11. Having noticed the aforesaid pleadings, this Court finds that so far as the appointment of the respondents 8 to 11 are concerned, they were initially appointed by following due process as Siksha Mitra on 29.01.2003. The resolution taken by the Mukhiya to remove the said five Shiksha Mitra is found to be illegal and unjustified as no opportunity was given to them. The resolution also does not mention the reasons for removing them. The resolution taken by the Mukhiya to remove the said five Shiksha Mitra is found to be illegal and unjustified as no opportunity was given to them. The resolution also does not mention the reasons for removing them. At the same time this Court finds that immediately after removal, the concerned Mukhiya proceeded to appoint the petitioners without following any due process of selection. It is also noticed that appointments have been made of relatives and daughter of Mukhiya also of other members of Panchayat. The said selection process was examined by the District Magistrate who is the overall supervising authority with regard to the selection of Shiksha Mitra in a district. The District Magistrate after having reached to the conclusion that the selection of the petitioners was not in accordance with law and fraud has been played, has cancelled the said selection process and also reinstated the respondents whose termination was found to be unjustified and illegal. 12. The writ petition which was pending before this Court in fact after passing of the order, dated 27th June, 2007, had become infructuous and no orders were required to passed but it appears that the information was not made available to the Court on the said date when the case w as taken-up on 07.12.2010. The Court therefore observed in Review that no order has been passed on the claim of the petitioner and it would not make any difference if the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn or certain observations are made while dismissing the same. Thus, the intention of the Court is borne out that it has not decided the case on merits. Hence, the claim of the respondents stood satisfied with the order passed by the District Magistrate dated 27.06.2007. They were therefore entitled for reinstatement and were reinstated and have already been continued. So far as the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is concerned while it is true that the Panchayat Teachers Appointment Rules, 2006, came into force on 01.07.2006 and the existing Siksha Mitra would be treated to be absorbed as Panchayat Teachers but if their initial selection is found to be illegal and is subject matter of enquiry, the same would not come in way of the authorities to set aside such selection and the subsequent absorption made would also become a nullity. In view thereof, the submission of the learned counsel is found to be without force and the same is rejected. 13. With regard to the contention of the learned counsel in respect of not following the rule, suffice is to note that the selection of the post of Siksha Mitra is contractual. The post is under a scheme and is not a post under the State Government. Once it is found that the selection has been made by a back door entry and by way of malpractice and fraud, as pointed out by the co-ordinate Bench and upheld by the Division Bench (supra), this Court is of firm view that, in such circumstances, principles of natural justice shall have no role to play. A person who is appointed by back-door and illegal method will have to go the same way. No right is vested in such a person who has been appointed without following due process of selection. In the circumstances, the exceptions given out by the Apex Court to the principles of natural justicein the case of Union of India vs. Tulsiram Patel reported in (1985) 3 SCC, 398, will have its application, paragraphs 97 and 102 are quoted below:— “97 : Though the two rules of natural justice, namely, nemo judex in causa sua and audi alteram partem, have now a definite meaning and connotation in law and their content and implications are well understood and firmly established, they are nonetheless not statutory rules. Each of these rules yields to and changes with the exigencies of different situations. They do not apply in the same manner to situation which are not alike. These rules are not cast in a rigid mould nor can they be put in a legal strait-jacket. They are not immutable but flexible. These rules can be adapted and modified by statutes and statutory rules and also by the constitution of the Tribunal which has to decide a particular matter and the rules by which such Tribunal is governed. There is no different in this respect between the law in England and in India. It is necessary to refer to various English decisions which have held so. 102 : In this connection, it must be remembered that a government servant is not wholly without any opportunity. There is no different in this respect between the law in England and in India. It is necessary to refer to various English decisions which have held so. 102 : In this connection, it must be remembered that a government servant is not wholly without any opportunity. Rules made under the proviso to Article 309 or under Acts referable to that article generally provide for a right of appeal except in those cases where the order of dismissal, removal or reduction in rank is passed by the President or the Governor of a State because they being the highest constitutional functionaries, there can be no higher authority to which an appeal can lie from an order passed by one of them. Thus, where the second proviso applies, though there is no prior opportunity to a government servant to defend himself against the charges made against him, he has the opportunity to show in an appeal filed by him that the charges made against him are not true. This would be a sufficient compliance with the requirements of natural justice.” Considering the said exceptions the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners are found to be without force. 14. Keeping in view the aforesaid findings and conclusion, no case is made out for interference the order passed by the District Magistrate, Patna, dated 27.06.2007, is upheld. 15. The writ petition is devoid of merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. l