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. 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 o