ORDER The question which arises for consideration by this Court is whether by interfering with the order of District Teacher Employment Appellate Authority, petitioner can be permitted to get a seal of approval from the High Court on the fraud he has played with the system through and through. This Court has no hesitation in recording such an opinion after having gone through the detailed order passed by the Appellate Authority and the manner in which petitioner tried to show that he was and continued to be a Panchayat Teacher as well as was holding the post of a Sarpanch on due election conducted by the State at the relevant time. Petitioner was returned to the post of Sarpanch on due participation in election process on 15.6.2006 and he also tried to show, despite a resignation letter having been tendered earlier from the post of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra, that he continued to be a Teacher and he became a Panchayat Teacher by deeming fiction on 1.7.2006 when the new rule came into place. 2. No doubt, learned senior counsel representing the petitioner harped enough on the matter that the so-called resignation letter has been produced by interested person. He does not have knowledge of that resignation letter and he also insists that the original was never produced by the concerned official before the Tribunal, therefore, before reaching to the conclusion on this aspect of the resignation, was uncalled for. Another contention is that it could be a case of bona fide mistake on the part of the petitioner to have continued on the post of Panchayat Teacher as well as a Sarpanch but the moment he realized that he was on the wrong side of law, he decided to resign from the post of Sarpanch. 3. From reading of the order as well as some of the documents, which have been produced in the writ application, it is not that resignation of the petitioner or non- existence of a resignation letter from the post of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra can be accepted on the face value. There is serious dispute which has been raised by the petitioner because if he does not do so then he cannot claim the benefit of being a Panchayat Teacher, a post he wants to stick to now after having tendered his resignation from the post of Sarpanch. 4. There is serious dispute which has been raised by the petitioner because if he does not do so then he cannot claim the benefit of being a Panchayat Teacher, a post he wants to stick to now after having tendered his resignation from the post of Sarpanch. 4. The action of the petitioner to resign from the post of Sarpanch was not a voluntary action because there is evidence to show that an inquiry was initiated when a complaint had reached headquarter in Patna about the petitioner, who continued to be a Panchayat Teacher as well as a Sarpanch of the same Panchayat. Obviously in these days of information and quick communication, such inputs to the petitioner, moved him to hurriedly resign from the post of Sarpanch. 5. The Court is not required to comment whether the petitioner could have fought the election at all despite holding a kind of office of profit at very first place; that surely falls within the domain of the State Election Commission or an affected person in that election to challenge such election but the question is that once the petitioner filed his nomination and was returned to the post of Sarpanch and took oath of office, he would be deemed to have vacated the post of Panchayat Teacher by his own conduct and behaviour and no formal order, in the opinion of this Court, was required to be passed either by the authority or by the Panchayat in this regard because admittedly petitioner would not hold both the offices simultaneously at the relevant timeframe. 6. The bogey of non- resignation, which has been raised by the petitioner, is only now to save his employment of a Teacher having tendered his resignation from the post of Sarpanch. According to the senior counsel, the post is no longer lucrative or paying. Decision of such kind is not required to be interfered with. There are enough materials, which have been dealt with by the Appellate Authority with regard to the conduct of the petitioner as to how he went on leave to which he was not entitled to on a false pretence and his participation and campaign and the manipulation in the records are also there which anybody can read and derive conclusions. 7. Writ has no merit. It is dismissed.