Judgment Sheema Ali Khan, J. 1. The appellant in this case is State of Bihar through the Director, Secondary Education, Government of Bihar. The order under challenge is dated 3.5.2000 passed by the learned single Judge in which it was directed that respondent No. 1 i.e. Anita Kumari should be appointed as Headmistress in nationalised/project High School. 2. The case of Anita Kumari before this Court was that she was empanelled for appointment at serial No. 67 and the persons junior to her in the panel were appointed whereas she has been denied appointment. Accordingly, learned single Bench had directed that steps should be taken for issuance of appropriate order of appointment in respect of the appellant. Learned single Bench had also observed that if the appellant is within the zone of appointment, steps should be taken for issuance of order of appointment of Anita Kumari within one month of the receipt of a copy of the order of the Hon ble Court, failing which steps should be taken by the Court against the erring officer/person including the Director, Secondary Education, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. During the hearing of the writ application the State of Bihar had not filed any counter-affidavit and the matter was disposed of without a counter-affidavit. 4. The State of Bihar filed an appeal against the said order and notices were issued on 8.9.2000 to the appellant and Vidhyalaya Seva Board, Patna. While hearing this matter on 17.10.2006, this Court also heard the learned Counsel appearing for irvtervenor, namely, Dr. Sudha Kumari. 5. The case of Dr. Sudha Kumari in the intervention petition is that she had applied for the post of Headmistress on the basis of advertisement No. 3 of 1999 and she too was empanelled at serial No. 104. It is also said on her behalf that the case of the intervenor was that earlier some malpractices and irregularities were discovered in the selection process for which C.W.J.C. No. 9405 of 1994 was filed by Manju Jha. It is also stated that several other persons had moved this Hon ble court in writ application. Ultimately, this Hon ble Court was pleased to quash the panel and directed that a fresh panel should be prepared in accordance with law in pursuance of advertisement No. 3/1999. Thereafter a panel was prepared and respondent, No. 1 was at serial No. 67 of the panel whereas Dr. Ultimately, this Hon ble Court was pleased to quash the panel and directed that a fresh panel should be prepared in accordance with law in pursuance of advertisement No. 3/1999. Thereafter a panel was prepared and respondent, No. 1 was at serial No. 67 of the panel whereas Dr. Sudha Kumari was at serial No. 105 of the panel. After preparation of the second panel Dr. Sudha Kumari along with one other filed writ application being C.W.J.C. No. 4207 of 1997 on the ground that there were vacancies and they should be absorbed against such vacancies. The Hon ble Court by order dated 3.11.1997 disposed of the writ application with a direction to the respondent-Director, Secondary Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna, to examine the claim of the petitioner expressing the opinion that if there was unfulfilled vacancies and vacancies were available, the Director. Secondary Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna, should examine the claim of the petitioner and issue consequential orders of appointment. 6. At this stage it may be emphasised that Dr. Sudha Kumari and others had not made Anita Kumari a party to the writ application and they had not claimed that Anita Kumari was not fit for appointment. The State of Bihar through the Director, Secondary Education had filed a counter-affidavit in C.W.J.C. No. 4206 of 1997 and there was no averment by the State that Anita Kumari had been wrongly empanelled and for that she did not have the qualification for being considered for appointment as a Headmistress. 7. It is the case of the intervenor Dr. Sudha Kumari, that she had moved in a contempt application numbered M.J.C. No. 1581 of 1998 arising out of C.W.J.C. No. 4207 of 1997 claiming that her case for appointment has not been considered by the Director, Secondary Education and that inclusion of the name of Anita Kumari in the panel at serial No. 67 was illegal. In the contempt application two sets of show causes were filed on behalf of the Director Secondary Education. It would be relevant to quote paras-8 and 9 of the first show cause which is at Annexure-X/3 to the intervention petition. In the contempt application two sets of show causes were filed on behalf of the Director Secondary Education. It would be relevant to quote paras-8 and 9 of the first show cause which is at Annexure-X/3 to the intervention petition. para-8- That the matter of appointment of Smt. Anita Kumari, whose name figured at serial No. 67 in the aforesaid panel is under consideration in the department and thus only one post, which is lying vacant in the general category is kept reserved for Smt. Anita Kumari. para-9-That Dr. Sudha Kumari (contempt petitioner) belongs to general category and her name appears at serial No. 105 in the aforesaid panel. In general category there is no vacancy available and, therefore, she cannot be appointed. 8. It appears that a second show cause was filed by the State of Bihar in which plea was taken by the State of Bihar that Anita Kumari was not appointed as Assistant Teacher in a government secondary school and she did not have the qualifications required to be considered for appointment as a Headmistress. At no stage Anita Kumari was made a party to the different writ applications or even in the contempt application filed on behalf of Dr. Sudha Kumari, intervenor. It may be brought on record that Anita Kumari in the writ application had annexed the advertisement and also averred that she was at serial No. 28 in the earlier panel which had been quashed by order dated 3.11.1997 and on reconsideration she was at serial No. 67 in the panel and since persons junior to her had been appointed and because of the fact that there was a vacancy due to non-joining of one Smt. Bimla Kumari, she was entitled to be appointed as Headmistress. 9. The intervention in this appeal has been filed because of the observation of this Hon ble Court in the contempt application which is quoted below : Heard counsel for the parties. As agreed, this matter is disposed of with the direction that the claim of the petitioner shall be considered in the light of the order disposing of L.P.A. filed by the State against the order dated 3.5.2000 of this Court in the case of Smt. Anita Kumari V/s. State of Bihar and Ors. passed in C.W.J.C. No. 1138 of 1999. As agreed, this matter is disposed of with the direction that the claim of the petitioner shall be considered in the light of the order disposing of L.P.A. filed by the State against the order dated 3.5.2000 of this Court in the case of Smt. Anita Kumari V/s. State of Bihar and Ors. passed in C.W.J.C. No. 1138 of 1999. The authority shall act in terms of the said order disposing of the L.P.A. The petitioner will be at liberty to file intervention application in the said L.P.A. 10. In the present appeal the State of Bihar and the intervenor have submitted before this Court that Anita Kumari is not entitled for appointment as she does not fulfil the requisite qualification of having seven years teaching experience in a nationalised school. The intervenor also claimed that she has been given relief by this Hon ble Court in the contempt application whereby she was given leave to file an intervention application. 11. From perusal of the order passed in M.J.C. No. 1581 of 1998 it is quite apparent that this Hon ble Court has merely said that the claim of the petitioner i.e. Dr. Sudha Kumari shall be considered in the light of the order disposing of the letters patent appeal filed by the State against the order of the learned single Judge. The claim of the State of Bihar and the intervenor that Anita Kumari(respondent No. 1 in the L.P.A.) does not possess the requisite qualification for appointment as a Headmistress is a new fact and that was not pleaded by the State of Bihar or for that matter by Dr. Sudha Kumari along with other persons when they had moved this Court in the earlier writ application and in fact it has been raised for the first time in the contempt application filed by Dr. Sudha Kumari. Even at that stage, the first show cause filed by Sri Anil Kumar Srivastava, Director, Secondary Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna that there was no such pleadings and averment and it is only in the second show cause the State has come out with such a plea and that too in a vague manner. The scope of letters patent appeal does not envisage that new fact which has been pleaded by the appellant of this case or by the intervenor, should be examined or gone into by this Court. The scope of letters patent appeal does not envisage that new fact which has been pleaded by the appellant of this case or by the intervenor, should be examined or gone into by this Court. The State has raised these questions in the memo of appeal without giving any foundational facts, much less any documents to support their stand aforesaid. Likewise in the counter-affidavit filed in M.J.C. No. 1581 of 1998, which is Annexure-X/4 to the intervention petition, it has merely been stated that Anita Kumari does not have seven years minimum teaching experience from any recognised school without supporting their stance by any document or enquiry conducted to ascertain the truth. The question that the qualification of seven years teaching experience in a Government run school is a debatable question and we do not propose to go into that at this belated stage and more so, because of the fact that there are no materials before us to support the contention that Anita Kumari did not have the requisite qualifications. 12. In the light of the above facts it is well settled that a new plea taken up for the first time in the Letters Patent Appeal which is not supported by foundational facts cannot be urged in the appeal. This view is supported by Division Bench judgments of this Hon ble Court in the case of Gopaljee Jha V/s. State of Bihar 1996(1) PLJR 755 and in the case of Madan Mohan Choudhary V/s. Patna High Court as reported in 2003(3) PLJR 341. The appellants and the intervenors therefore cannot assail the judgment of the learned single judge on this ground. 13. In conclusion I come to the following findings : The writ application filed by Dr. Sudha Kumari was for consideration of her appointment as Headmistress in pursuance of advertisement No. 3/99 and there was no determination by this Hon ble Court regarding the qualifications of Anita Kumari. 14. The writ petition filed in this Hon ble Court by the intervenor did not challenge the appointment/empanelment of Anita Kumari. 15. The State of Bihar did not raise or challenge Anita Kumaris qualification for appointment in the writ application. 16. The question that Anita Kumari did not have the requisite qualification was raised for the first time in the contempt petition by Dr. Sudha Kumari without making her party in the contempt application. 17. 15. The State of Bihar did not raise or challenge Anita Kumaris qualification for appointment in the writ application. 16. The question that Anita Kumari did not have the requisite qualification was raised for the first time in the contempt petition by Dr. Sudha Kumari without making her party in the contempt application. 17. The State of Bihar and the intervenor did not bring any material on record in the M.J.C. No. 1581 of 1998 which would support their claim that Anita Kumari was not duly qualified. 18. There is nothing to show that the appointment/empanelment of Anita Kumari has been cancelled. 19. Questions not raised in the writ have been raised for the first time in the appeal. 20. In view of the discussions mentioned above and for the reasons stated aforesaid, we do not find any merit in the contentions of the appellants and, as such, the appeal is dismissed.