ORDER Mihir Kumar Jha, J 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner in this writ application has assailed the order dated 28.05.2009 passed by the District Teachers Appellate Authority West Champaran hereinafter referred to as the Authority, whereby and whereunder, the complaint filed by the petitioner as against her termination of service and the consequential appointment of respondent no. 9 on the post of Panchayat Teacher has rejected. 3. The facts which are not in dispute and would be sufficient for disposing of this writ application lie in a very narrow compass. The post of Panchayat Shikshak having fallen vacant in South Ghogha Panchayat in the district of West Champaran, a selection procedure was initiated in terms of Bihar Panchayat Teachers Appointment Rules-2006. After submission of application forms, a merit list was prepared on 24.12.2006, wherein, respondent no. 9 was found to be the best candidate among the backward category with 64 per cent marks amongst untrained candidates. It has to be noted that in the same merit list Harendra Ram was found to be the best candidate with 72 per cent marks under the Scheduled Caste category, one Farida Khatoon with 67.91 per cent marks in the most backward female category, Sabir Miandad with 78.13 per cent in the most backward category. The said merit list dated 24.12.2006, obviously was to be now acted upon, inasmuch as, it was mentioned therein, that the counselling would be held on 30.12.2006 at 10 am in Primary School, Mohaddi Sudhar. 4. Surprisingly, this merit list contains signature of only Farida Khatoon and no other person which would be the evidence of the fact that no other candidate was made even aware of the process of counselling to be fixed on 30.12.2006. In fact, there is nothing on record to show that when the merit list was finalized on 24.12.2006, any information was sent to all the other fours candidates. This aspect of the matter get clarified also from the proceedings of 30.12.2006 because on that day the Selection Committee had actually considered the case of the trained teacher, Vijay Kumar Mishir, and thereafter had taken a decision that the information be sent to all the four candidates of all the untrained category as named above. This aspect of the matter get clarified also from the proceedings of 30.12.2006 because on that day the Selection Committee had actually considered the case of the trained teacher, Vijay Kumar Mishir, and thereafter had taken a decision that the information be sent to all the four candidates of all the untrained category as named above. It is therefore, clear that when the alleged information was sent on 30.12.2006 to the four candidates fixing next date of counselling on 08.01.2007, opportunity was sought to be given to all the four candidates ranking highest in respective category to appear and get selected after producing their original marksheets/ certificates on the basis of which they had ranked first in their respective category. 5. 5. It, however, transpires from perusal of the record that the bungling was sought to be committed at this stage, inasmuch as, in the inquiry conducted by the Sub-divisional Education Officer, it has been found :- <span class="Hfont"> ^^vizf'kf{kr vH;fFkZ;ksa dk izFke dkmalfyax 30-12-06 dks fu/kkZfjr dh x;h Fkh] ftlesa eatw dqekjh lfgr dqy pkj vH;fFkZ;ksa dk uke vafdr gSA dkmalfyax 10-00 cts fnu esa izk0 fo0 eksg|h esa vk;ksftr dh x;h gSA dkmalfyax dh frfFk dks gh vuqifLFkr vH;fFkZ;kaas dks ,d vkSj ekSdk nsrs gq, fnukad 08-01-07 dks dkmalfyax djkus gsrq ;w-ih-lh- fd;k x;k gSA ;w-ih-lh- djus dk le; 12-00 cts fn[kk;k x;k gSA tcfd 'kke 5-00 cts rd vH;fFkZ;ksa dh izrh{kk djuh pkfg, FkhA fnukad 08-01-07 dks eatw dqekjh rFkk vU; vH;fFkZ;ksa dh dkmalfyax dh frfFk fu/kkZfjr FkhA fnukad 08-01-07 dks gh 10-00 cts fnu ea gh dkmalfyax ;w-ih-lh- dj fn;k x;kA tcfd p;fur vH;fFkZ;ksa dks dkmalfyax gsrq 5-00 cts 'kke rd izrh{kk djuk pkfg, FkkA 3- fnukad 15-01-07 dks dkmalfyax gsrq le; fu/kkZfjr dh x;h gS ysfdu mlh fnu dqekjh lquhrk ¼fi0 o0 efgyk½ rFkk uq:y glu valkjh ¼v0fi0oxZ½ dks p;fur djrs gq, lqcg 10-00 cts gh ;w-ih-lh- dj fn;k x;k gS] tcfd p;fur vH;fFkZ;ksa dks dkmalfyax gsrq 'kke 5-00 cts rd izrh{kk djuh pkfg, FkhA bl izdkj dqekjh lquhrk dks fi0 fo0 efgyk dksfV esa p;fur dj fu;ksftr fd;k x;k gS ftldk es/kk vad 52-22 % <span class="Hfont"> gSA vkosfndk eatw dqekjh dk ?kj iapk;r Hkou ls ek= 1 fdyksehVj dh nwjh ij gS] rFkk mls dkmalfyax laca/kh dksbZ Hkh ;w-ih-lh- izkIr ugha gksrk gSA mlds dkmalfyax dh frfFk dks 'kke 5-00 cts rd izrh{kk fd;s cxSj fnu ds 10-00 cts gh nwljs vH;fFkZ;ksa dks p;fur dj ;w-ih-lh- dj fn;k tkrk gSA blh izdkj blds ckn ds vH;FkhZ dqekjh vfurk 'kekZ ftudk dkmalfyax fnukad 15-01-07 dks FkkA mlh fnu blds LFkku ij Hkh lqcg 10-00 cts gh dqekjh lquhrk dks p;fur djrs gq, dkmalfyax ds fy;s ;w-ih-lh- dj fn;k tkrk gSA es/kk lwph dk Hkh izdk'ku f'k{kd fu;ekoyh&2006 ds vkyksd esa ugha fd;k tkrk gS ftl dkj.k iz[k.M f'k{kk izlkj inkf/kdkjh ds }kjk eqf[k;k@iapk;r lfpo ls i=kad&07 fnukad 06-01-07 rFkk i=kad 34 fnukad 16-01-07 ds }kjk es/kk lwph dh ekax dh x;hA vfHkys[kksa ,oa dk;Zokgh iath ds tkap ls irk pyrk gS fd fi0o0 dksfV esa dqekjh lquhrk tkSts&vfuy dqekj es/kk vad&52-22 dks fu;ksftr djus gsrq gh vkosfndk eatw dqekjh ¼es/kk vad&64½ dks tkyh ;w-ih-lh- ds }kjk lwfpr fd;k x;k ftlls vkosfndk dks dkmalfyax dh tkudkjh izkIr ugha gks ldhA** 6. The aforementioned finding of facts having been arrived by a responsible high ranking officer would therefore, leave nothing for speculation that the petitioner despite having obtained 52.22 per cent marks was sought to be favoured in the process of appointment by eliminating respondent no. 9, who had secured 64 per cent marks and belongs to the same backward category. Once this aspect becomes clear that respondent no. 9 in the course of inquiry was found to be better candidate than the petitioner and had been subsequently appointed on the post of Panchayat Teacher against the part year marked for the backward category, this Court would find it difficult to now allow the claim of the petitioner replacing the securing only 52.22 per cent marks by dislodging/removing Respondent No. 9. 7. Mr. Kripanand Jha, learned counsel for the petitioner, however, has submitted that the selection of respondent 9 ought to have been not made because he had not appeared in the counselling. As noted above, this very question has been answered by the Sub-divisional Officer in his enquiry report who had found that not only the Panchayat Secretary had committed the fraud by omitting to consider the records but also changing the records for favouring the petitioner. In fact s departmental proceeding has also been sought to initiated against the Panchayat Secretary for committing such fraudulent misconduct. 8. At this stage, Mr. Jha would point out that this inquiry report of Subdivisional Officer is an ex-parte inquiry report and therefore, should not have been relied by the Authority. In the considered opinion of this Court it is not relevant whether the inquiry report of Sub-divisional Education Officer is an ex-parte inquiry report or a report prepared after giving opportunity to the petitioner inasmuch as, he was not conducting a departmental proceeding or a full fledged inquiry. He was only holding a fact finding inquiry to look into the allegations and therefore, once he had looked into all the records and entered the details of the process of counselling, the petitioner was required to dislodge it before the Authority. She had however failed to do so and in the writ petition also she has not described the same to be suffering from any error of record. She had however failed to do so and in the writ petition also she has not described the same to be suffering from any error of record. The petitioner thus having failed to produce any documentary proof to show that whatever was recorded by S.D.E.O. about the counselling to be an error of record cannot expect this Court to re-appraise facts which has been already done by the Authority. 9. As with regard to alleged non production of the certificate by the respondent no. 9, all has to be noted is that the instructions given in the prescribed proforma itself lays down that no mark sheet or certificate had to be annexed at the time of filling of the application form and merit list was to be prepared on the basis of the declaration given in the prescribed application form and such certificates were to be verified in the process of counselling. In the present case, admittedly when the merit list was finalized and the respondent no. 9 had been shown the best candidate in backward category, there can be no iota of doubt as with regard to her being qualified or having the highest marks in his category. The only question therefore was whether she had produced the certificate on the date of counselling. As noted above, it was her case before the Authority that she was never served with the notice of counselling i.e. how the inquiry was conducted by the Authority at the behest of the Sub-divisional Education Officer, who has found great bungling in the process of counselling at the behest of Panchayat Secretary. Thus the ground of non production of certificate by Respondent no. 9 cannot be over emphasised even when the case of the petitioner in paragraph no. 20 of the writ application is confined to marksheet alone. 10. The reliance placed by Mr. Jha, learned counsel for the petitioner on the order of the District Teachers Appellate Authority that there was actually no complaint ever filed by the respondent no. 9 against the petitioner has to be again noted for its being rejected. 20 of the writ application is confined to marksheet alone. 10. The reliance placed by Mr. Jha, learned counsel for the petitioner on the order of the District Teachers Appellate Authority that there was actually no complaint ever filed by the respondent no. 9 against the petitioner has to be again noted for its being rejected. From the averments made in the order, it is clear that the issue as with regard to malpractice by the selection Committee was already raised on 06.01.2007 when other highly placed candidate, namely, Kumari Nanda and Vinita had voiced protest of being similarly edged out despite being the best in their category by resorting to fraudulent of process of couselling. From that day the inquiry having been initiated, it cannot be said that the notice of the irregularity taken into account by the Authority was without complaint. The complaint of respondent no. 9 in fact had been also noticed by the Block Development Officer, the prescribed Authority inasmuch he has also recorded that he had made his inquiry and had found respondent no. 9 despite having highest marks of 64 per cent in her category was sought to be edged out by the petitioner having 62.22 per cent marks. Thus the issue of their being no complaint at the behest of the respondent no. 9 also seems to be incorrect. 11. Mr. Jha, has then placed reliance on an order of this Court dated 05.03.2009 passed in C.W.J.C No. 11933 of 2008 (Kumari Laxmi vs The State of Bihar and Ors) and has submitted that since law has been laid down by this Court as with regard to scope of Rule-18 that there must be a complaint within a period of 30 days of appointment the complaint of respondent no. 9 as against the petitioner ought to have been not entertained. This Court has two difficulty in accepting this submission namely, first of all Rule 18 of Bihar Panchayat Teachers Appointment Rules-2006 does not prescribe any limitation and therefore, nothing can be said as with regard to fixed time limit for filing of a complaint against the appointment made on the post of Panchayat Teacher. This Court has two difficulty in accepting this submission namely, first of all Rule 18 of Bihar Panchayat Teachers Appointment Rules-2006 does not prescribe any limitation and therefore, nothing can be said as with regard to fixed time limit for filing of a complaint against the appointment made on the post of Panchayat Teacher. Every case has got its own facets and therefore, whatever has been said by this Court in the case of Kumari Laxmi (supra) will have to be left confined to the facts or else has to be held per incurium, inasmuch as, the statutory provision of Rule 18 does not prescribe any time limit for filing of a complaint. 12. In any event justice having been done to respondent no. 9 by securing her appointment on the basis of she being the best candidate in the backward category, this Court would not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order by which only the petitioner’s complaint after being removed from service on account of she being an inferior/less meritorious candidate was dismissed by the Authority. Her complaint as against her removal for displacing respondent no. 9 was itself wholly misconceived. The finding of facts recorded by the District Teachers Appellate Authority infact does not suffer from any error of record and therefore, this Court would not find any reason to interfere with the same. 13. In the result this application is devoid of any merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.