JUDGEMENT 1. Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel appearing for the State. 2. Prayer of the petitioner is for quashing of the order dated 24.9.2009 passed by the District Teachers Employment Appellate Tribunal, Kaimur, Bhabhua in Appeal No. 36 of 2009. The Appellate Tribunal by this order has cancelled the appointment of the petitioner while considering the complaint filed by one Dinesh Kumar. The process of appointment had been initiated in the year, 2006 appointment finally made in February, 2007. Sub-sequently, one Dinesh Kumar, filed an objection before the Tribunal stating that though he participated in the counselling and had higher percentage of marks than the appointed candidate Manoj Kumar, his candidature was not considered for appointment: Manoj Kumar, having lesser marks was appointed. The Tribunal has discussed the complaint filed by Dinesh Kumar and the case of petitioner Manoj Kumar. Final finding recorded by the Tribunal is that Dinesh Kumar claimed higher marks than the petitioner, on the basis of the mark-sheet, which was never placed before the Appointment Committee alongwith his application. In course of the consideration by the Appellate Tribunal, Dinesh Kumar himself admitted this fact. The Panchayat Secretary, who also participated in the proceeding, brought this fact before the Tribunal that Dinesh Kumar, in fact, had not participated in the counselling, as such there was no occasion to consider his candidature for appointment. Subsequently, this fact was also admitted by Dinesh Kumar and finally he withdrew his objection against the appointment of the petitioner. 3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the peculiarity of the impugned order is that though objection made against the petitioners appointment was withdrawn by the complainant, petitioners appointment has been held to be illegal and cancelled. 4. The cancellation order has been passed by the Tribunal, on the ground that petitioner was appointed on consideration of enhanced marks by the Appointing Authorities. At the time of the issuance of the appointment letter marks excess to the real marks of the petitioner was taken into consideration. There is no such finding that in this act of Appointment Committee petitioners connivance was also there. It is also not recorded in the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal that any other candidate than the petitioner had participated in the counselling. 5. Admittedly no other candidate had participated in counselling against the post reserved for S.C. candidate. There is no such finding that in this act of Appointment Committee petitioners connivance was also there. It is also not recorded in the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal that any other candidate than the petitioner had participated in the counselling. 5. Admittedly no other candidate had participated in counselling against the post reserved for S.C. candidate. In any case the petitioner would have been appointed as he was the single candidate, who participated in the counselling. In this circumstance, there was not any proper and adequate reason for cancelling the appointment of the petitioner. 6. On perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the Member, Appellate Tribunal was more concern with the exercise undertaken by him, rather than the propriety of the order. He was more concerned in final outcome of his effort, which is apparent from the impugned order. The post against which the petitioner was appointed, no other candidate was available, having higher or lower marks, petitioner being sole candidate was entitled for being appointed. 7. The impugned order dated 24.9.2009 is quashed. The respondents, Block Education Extension Officer, Chainpur, Kaimur, Bhabhua, Panchayat Secretary, Nand Gaon Panchayat and the Mukhiya of the same Panchayat are directed to reinstate the petitioner on his post forthwith, on production/communication of this order, with all consequential benefits. 8. This application is allowed.