JUDGEMENT 1. The petitioner had applied for the post of Primary Panchayat Teacher. As per the merit list, she was at Serial 5 in the panel and the lady empanelled at Serial 7 was appointed. Petitioner immediately challenged the appointment by lodging a complaint before the Sub-Divisional Officer. The Sub-Divisional Officer got the matter enquired into. Before him, the Panchayat Secretary and the concerned Mukhiya submitted that the petitioner had not appeared for counselling and, as such, was not considered for appointment finally. When the Sub-Divisional Officer asked for the register in relation thereto, they stated that for the date of counselling, no register or document was maintained. Upon these findings, petitioner then moved the District Teachers Appointment Appellate Tribunal. The order of the Tribunal dated 30.7.2009 as passed in Appeal Case No 380 of 2009 is Annexure-5. That order clearly notices these facts. It also notices that as. before the Sub-Divisional Officer so before the Tribunal, it was admitted that no documents were maintained in relation to counselling. It was further admitted that notice for counselling was also sent under Certificate of Posting The Tribunal clearly held that the entire process lacked transparency. The Tribunal then noted that Ranju Kumari, who was 7th in the merit list and appointed, had since resigned. Petitioner asserts that in fact she resigned when petitioner made complaint against her appointment. Tribunal, thus, ordered that either petitioner may be adjusted against the post vacated by Ranju Kumari or the selection process must be conducted all over again. Petitioner, thereafter, sought appointment to the post to which she had become entitled as far back as in 2007 if not then upon the date when Ranju Kumari resigned which is 22.11.2007 itself but that was not done on the plea that as per State Government directives, the panel, as prepared, had to be acted upon by 30th of December:, 2007 whereafter it would expire. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that his right has crystallised on 30.6.2007 if not on 22.11.2007. The same could not be denied because the respondents themselves defaulted in taking proper action. They acted mala fide wrongfully denying petitioners right. They cannot now turn around and defeat the claim of the petitioner because of their own default. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that his right has crystallised on 30.6.2007 if not on 22.11.2007. The same could not be denied because the respondents themselves defaulted in taking proper action. They acted mala fide wrongfully denying petitioners right. They cannot now turn around and defeat the claim of the petitioner because of their own default. In reply to this, all I can say but to quote the often referred passage from the judgment of Chief Justice Chagla in the case of AH India Groundnut Syndicate Limited vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay City, AIR 1954 Bombay 232: "But the most surprising contention is put forward by the Department that because their own officer failed to discharge his statutory duty, the assessee is deprived of his right which the law has given to him under subsection (2) of S. 24. In other words, the Department wants to benefit from and wants to take advantage of its own default. It is an elementary principle of law that no personwe take it that the Income-Tax Department is included in that definitioncan put forward his own default in defence to a right asserted by the other party. A person cannot say that the party claiming the right is deprived of that right because "I have committed a default and the right is lost because of that default" 2. In that view of the matter, i am left with no option but to issue a writ of mandamus directing the concerned respondents to appoint the petitioner as Primary Panchayat Teacher immediately in the vacancy caused by resignation of the said Ranju Kumari. 3. The writ application is, accordingly, allowed.