ORDER Heard Mr. Rajeev Kumar Singh learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Kishore Kumar Thakur, Mr. Arun Kumar as well as Mr. Virendra Kumar learned counsels appearing for various private respondents and AC to SC-26 for the State. 2. 12 number of posts of Panchayat Teacher fell for appointment within Gram Panchayat Kothiyaray in the District of Sitamarhi. On completion of the selection process the petitioners herein were selected and appointed. The appointment(s) were made on various dates in the year 2010. Aggrieved by the aforesaid selection of the writ petitioners and non selection of the private respondents herein diverse appeals/complaints were filed before the Tribunal constituted under the Bihar Panchayat Primary Teacher (Appointment & Service Condition) Rule, 2006. Some of the authorities who constituted the selection committee also made such complaint before the Tribunal alleging several irregularities made in such selection. The Tribunal, by a common order dated 06.4.2011, disposed of the appeals whereby finding the entire selection process having been completed in a gross irregular /illegal manner the same was/were cancelled and the respondent(s) was directed to re-initiate fresh process of selection from the stage of counselling in accordance with the Rules and the provisions governing such selection. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners have filed the present writ petition. 3. Diverse counter affidavit(s) have been filed on behalf of the private respondents. The petitioners have filed rejoinder thereto. Although notice was issued and served on respondent no.7 (Mukhiya) and the respondent no. 8 (Panchayat Secretary) of the concerned Gram Panchayat but no counter affidavit has been filed. A counter affidavit on behalf of the District Education Officer–cum- D.P.O. (Establishment), Sitamarhi has been filed supporting the order passed by the Tribunal. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners, while assailing the order passed by the Tribunal, submits that several materials were placed by the petitioners before the Tribunal but none of them has been considered by the Tribunal. The Tribunal was swayed by the statement of the then Panchayat Secretary namely Kailash Panjiar who had, on his own, appeared in the said proceeding and made statement. It is next contended that Tribunal being the fact finding Court/Authority was required to examine relevant documents furnished by the petitioners and the State respondents and thereafter an order could have been passed recording finding(s) based on appraisal of those records/materials. It is next contended that Tribunal being the fact finding Court/Authority was required to examine relevant documents furnished by the petitioners and the State respondents and thereafter an order could have been passed recording finding(s) based on appraisal of those records/materials. Learned counsel has drawn attention of the Court to the order of the Tribunal in order to submits that the Tribunal having considered the submissions of the appellant and the statement made by the ex- Panchayat Secretary only perused the proceeding Register and recorded a finding that the same appeared to have been created clandestinely on one day which was written in one pen/handwriting. He has further submitted that prior to the complaint lodged before the Tribunal the matter was also enquired by the Block Development Officer. A report in this regard was called for and submitted by the authority copy whereof has been enclosed as Annexure-8. The Tribunal, in all fairness, ought to have examined the same before coming to any conclusion. The order, therefore, merits interference since the findings recorded by the Tribunal is not based on appraisal of all relevant facts/circumstances which were placed before the Tribunal. If there was any doubt, the Tribunal could have also called for a report from the concerned authority. It has been pointed out from the affidavits filed on behalf of some of the respondents that one of them had already appeared in the counselling in different Gram Panchayat and has already been selected/appointed. She is still working as such. Any such grievance about non selection in the said case would not hold water. 5. Mr. Thakur, learned counsel for some of the respondents, on the other hand, supported the impugned order. It has been contended that from perusal of the said order, it would appear that irregularities/illegalities in wholesome manner was committed by the respondents in selecting the petitioners. Those who had appeared in the counselling and had obtained higher marks in diverse categories were left out whereas the petitioners were chosen who had secured marks less than the respondents. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent no.23 has contended that on bare perusal of the Rule governing the selection process, it would appear that there is no bar to a candidate to appear in two selection process initiated by two selection committees of two different Gram Panchayats. 7. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent no.23 has contended that on bare perusal of the Rule governing the selection process, it would appear that there is no bar to a candidate to appear in two selection process initiated by two selection committees of two different Gram Panchayats. 7. This Court could have considered the rival submissions made by the parties but considering the fact that the petitioners have not enclosed the relevant documents on which they seek to rely and the fact that the Mukhiya and the Panchayat Secretary have not appeared and filed any counter affidavit, this Court is hamstringed in considering the submissions based on facts placed by the petitioners or the private respondents. It cannot be disputed that this Court, while exercising its plenary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would confine its consideration with respect to the manner in which the decision has been taken by the authority. It has been strenuously argued on behalf of the petitioners that the contention raised by the petitioners were not taken into account by the Tribunal. Diverse documents having bearing on the case were placed but not perused and appreciated by the Tribunal. While setting aside the order the Tribunal has directed to initiate the process from the stage of counselling when both the parties shall have opportunity to be considered. The petitioners as well as the respondents have argued in one voice that the selection was made in the year 2010. Except the respondents no one else has raised any objection with regard to his/her non selection. Such consideration should be confined to the writ petitioners as well as the complainant(s)/appellant(s) who are the private respondents herein. This aspect of the matter has not been dealt with by the Tribunal. 8. On a consideration of the submissions made by the parties, this Court is satisfied that the matter require re-hearing/ re-consideration by the Tribunal after affording opportunity to both the parties. Relevant records which have been sought to be placed before this Court by the petitioners would be placed before the Tribunal by the petitioners as well as the private respondents. The Tribunal shall consider the case of the petitioners as well as each of the complainant (respondents herein) and thereafter pass a fresh order in accordance with law. Relevant records which have been sought to be placed before this Court by the petitioners would be placed before the Tribunal by the petitioners as well as the private respondents. The Tribunal shall consider the case of the petitioners as well as each of the complainant (respondents herein) and thereafter pass a fresh order in accordance with law. Accordingly, the common order dated 06.04.2011 passed by the Tribunal as contained in Annexure-1 is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Tribunal for fresh adjudication in accordance with law. This Court would direct the petitioners as well as the private respondents herein to appear before the Tribunal on or before 27th of November, 2013 with a copy of the present order enabling the Tribunal to decide the pending appeal/complaint expeditiously in accordance with law. 9. There shall be no order as to costs.