JUDGEMENT 1. Re. Interlocutory Application No. 713 of 2011. This application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been tiled by the appellants for condonation of delay of 5 days occurred in filing the Letters Patent Appeal. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the delay is condoned. 3. Interlocutory Application stands disposed of. Re. Letters Patent Appeal No. 159 of 2011. 4. This Appeal preferred under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent arises from the order dated 30th November, 2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in above C.W.J.C. No. 13696 of 2010- 5. The appellants-writ petitioners filed above C.W.J.C. No. 13696 of 2010 under Article 226 of the Constitution to challenge the common order dated 26th July, 2010 passed by the District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority, Buxar in Appeal Nos. 182, 183, 184 and 185 of 2010. Pursuant to the selection made by the Gram Panchayat in the year 2006 and consequent appointment came under scanner by the Block Development Officer. By orders dated 23rd November, 2007 made by the Block Development Officer, Nawanagar, the appointment of the appellants was cancelled. The said order was subject matter of challenge before this Court in C.W.J.C. Nos. 16890 of 2007, 16643 of 2007, 17223 of 2007 and 16709- of 2007. The learned Single Judge was, by his order dated 25th March, 2010, pleased to hold that the Block Development Officer had no authority to cancel the appointment of the appellants. Consequently, the orders dated 23rd November, 2007 came to be set aside. Nevertheless, in view of the establishment of the appellate Authority under Rule 18 of the Bihar Panchayat Elementary Teachers (Selection and Condition of Service) Rules, 2006 the learned Single Judge was pleased to remit the matter to the Appellate Authority to consider the appeal of the petitioners on merits. 6. Pursuant to the said order the above referred Appeal Nos. 182 to 185 of 2010 came to be registered before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority was, by its order dated 26th July, 2010, pleased to set aside the appointment of the appellants. In the challenge before the learned Single Judge, the learned Single Judge was pleased to hold that the Authority had occasion to reconsider the matter afresh after looking into all the records and that was well within the terms of appointment of the appellants. In the challenge before the learned Single Judge, the learned Single Judge was pleased to hold that the Authority had occasion to reconsider the matter afresh after looking into all the records and that was well within the terms of appointment of the appellants. In view of the infirmities noticed by the Appellate Authority, the learned Single Judge was pleased to dismiss the writ petition. Therefore, the present Appeal. 7. Learned counsel Mr. Jitendra Singh has appeared for the appellants. He has submitted that the Appellate Authority below and the learned Single Judge have failed to examine the records in its true perspective. The decision of the Authority below is based on surmises and conjectures. He has relied upon Rule 9(kha)(vii) of the Rules of 2006. He has submitted that under the Scheme of the Rules the applicants have right to lodge objection against the merit list. The appellants had remained present for verification on 8th November, 2006. As their names were not included in the merit list, the appellants had lodged objection against their non-selection. After their objections were examined they were selected. As they were present on the first date for verification, they were not required to remain present on the later date of verification. The appellants had remained present for counselling on 27th November, 2006 and 29th November, 2006. Their selection was made in accordance with the merit list. 8. We have examined the order of the Authority below. To us, it appears that the decision of the Authority below is based on the conjectures and surmises. Having noticed that the appellants had lodged objection against their non-selection pursuant to the verification made on 8th November, 2006, their absence for verification on 20th November, 2006 was the reason for cancellation of their appointment. Besides, it is not in dispute that appellants had secured higher merits and their placement in the merit list was appropriate. The Authority below also erred in examining the case of one of the appellants alone. The appointment of the rest of the appellants has been set aside without assigning any reason. In our opinion, the Authority below had no reason to cancel the appointment of the appellants. 9. The learned Single Judge has failed to notice the discrepancies in the order of the Authority below. The reasons cited by the Authority below were not germane to the matter under consideration. 10. In our opinion, the Authority below had no reason to cancel the appointment of the appellants. 9. The learned Single Judge has failed to notice the discrepancies in the order of the Authority below. The reasons cited by the Authority below were not germane to the matter under consideration. 10. For the aforesaid reasons, we allow this Appeal. The impugned order dated 30th November, 2010 made by the learned Single Judge in above C.W.J.C. No. 13696 of 2010 is set aside. C.W.J.C. No. 13696 of 2010 is allowed. The judgment and order dated 26th July, 2010 passed by the Authority below in Appeal Nos. 182, 183, 184 & 185 of 2010 is quashed and set aside. The Appeal Nos. 182, 183, 184 and 185 of 2010 are allowed. The order of cancellation of appointment of the appellants stands quashed. 11. We are informed at the bar that all throughout the aforesaid proceedings, the appellants services have been continued. In view of the continuation of the service of the appellants, no consequential orders are required except that unpaid salary of the appellants, if any, be paid within two months from today. 12. The parties will bear their own cost.