ORDER 1. Both the Writ Applications arise from a common order, dated 27.09.2010, passed in Appeal No. 99 of 2009-10, as well as Appeal No. 118 of 2009-10. Appeal 99 was filed by Shashank Shekhar and others, who are petitioners in C.W.J.C. No. 10133, whereas Appeal 118 was moved by the present petitioners of C.W.J.C. No. 18642 of 2010. Both the matters are required to be heard together and are being disposed off by a common order. 2. Parties have been heard in both the matters. Case of petitioners of C.W.J.C. No. 18642 of 2010 According to these petitioners they filed their application for employment as Panchayat Teachers in the year 2006. After due scrutiny and their eligibility being in order, date of counseling was fixed and was held as per the schedule. The Niyojan Samiti prepared a merit-list of candidates in accordance with the Primary Teachers Employment Rules, 2006 and 38 candidates were selected for employment. Letters for appointment were issued through UPC, out of which 11 persons did not join or report. The second round of counseling was held for filling up the 11 left over vacancies. In this counseling, 35 candidates appeared, of which 11 were short-listed and came to be appointed. After appointment they joined their posts in the respective schools and started discharging their duties. 3. One Shivjatan Prasad and others (petitioners of C.W.J.C. No. 10133 of 2011) filed an application before the Block Development Officer, alleging that though they appeared in the counseling, but the Mukhiya and the Panchayat Secretary malafidely did not publish their names in the merit-list. Block Development Officer is supposed to have found the allegation to be misplaced and also not maintainable, as it was filed after four months of the publication of the merit list. The decision of the said BDO is Annexure- 4 to the Writ Application. One Naresh Pandey thereafter filed yet another application before the Block Development Officer, who cancelled the employment of the petitioners and informed one and all about the said decision. Mukesh Kumar, Chairman of the Employment Committee of the said Panchayat approached the District Magistrate, seeking cancellation of the order of the BDO, who had cancelled the appointment of 11 persons as uncalled for. The District Magistrate held that the BDO had no jurisdiction to cancel the appointment. However, the order of the Block Development Officer was not interfered or cancelled. The District Magistrate held that the BDO had no jurisdiction to cancel the appointment. However, the order of the Block Development Officer was not interfered or cancelled. But taking cue from the observation of the District Magistrate, BDO cancelled his order dated 21.10.2008 and subsequently, the entire order dated 03.10.2008. He thereafter referred the matter to the District Teachers Employment Appellate Tribunal for adjudication or disposal of the dispute in terms of Annexure- 8. Many a things are said thereafter as to the manner in which the District Teachers Employment Appellate Tribunal heard the earlier dispute relating to Case No. 3 of 2008-09 and the order, dated 17.03.2009 passed therein. That decision dated 17.03.2009 passed by the District Teachers Employment Appellate Tribunal, Lakhisarai was assailed by the present petitioners by filing C.W.J.C. No. 4964 of 2009. The order was quashed and matter remanded back for a fresh adjudication on the ground that these persons were not given an opportunity of hearing. The present order contained in Annexure – 1 is the outcome of the second round of exercise. The Appeal No. 99 filed by one Shashank Shekhar and others was registered on the basis of the direction of the High Court passed in C.W.J.C. No. 12026 of 2007 and Appeal 118 on the basis of order passed in C.W.J.C. No. 4964 of 2009. These petitioners, who were 8 in numbers, are part of these 12 teachers, whose appointment was found to be illegal by the Tribunal. This is being seriously contested by the petitioners in this Writ Application. According to them, the selection was made in accordance with rules after following procedure. The allegation against the selection was motivated and nothing illegal was done by the Panchayat to warrant the findings leading to their removal. 4. Counsels representing the private-respondents, who are also petitioners in C.W.J.C. No. 10133 of 2011 have taken this Court through the detailed findings given by the Tribunal after hearing the parties as to the kind of illegality which had been committed by the Panchayat, like including persons who were otherwise not eligible for appointment, despite having lesser marks etc., the manner in which the counseling was manipulated to oust a set of persons from being appointed. In fact no counseling was done on the indicated date. One appointment letter appointing Vijay Kumar was issued on a fake signature of a Panchayat Secretary. In fact no counseling was done on the indicated date. One appointment letter appointing Vijay Kumar was issued on a fake signature of a Panchayat Secretary. Counseling was done without informing any authority. The dates and the time fixed for counseling was not adhered to which was fixed by the State Government. The roster to fill up the 38 seats was not followed. Forgery and manipulation was done to show participation of certain members of the Selection Committee. More than 50 per cent of the seats were filled up by women candidates and persons with higher marks were deliberately kept out of the list, so that the persons with lesser marks could be accommodated. They have also brought various findings given by authorities from time to time in the manner in which things have been done in the present Panchayat. 5. It is in this background that ht Tribunal decided to annul the appointment of the petitioners of C.W.J.C. No. 18642, which is not required to be interfered with. Case of petitioners of C.W.J.C. No. 10133 of 2011 Stand of these petitioners are that the finding given by the Appellate Authority so far as the appointment of petitioners of the other Writ Application is based on proper facts and evidence. Therefore, cancellation of their appointment was surely required to be done. However, rejection of the claim of these petitioners by the Appellate Authority is uncalled for, because they were rightful claimants and applicants whose claim was defeated by adopting illegal methods and machination of the Mukhiya as well as the Panchayat Secretary. They had prepared the merit-list according to their convenience and obviously for considerations, ignoring the kind of marks which most of these petitioners had and by not holding counseling on the date announced by the State Government, but making the so called counseling behind the back of these petitioners. The objection taken by the Appellate Authority with regard to delayed filing of complaint by them is a misplaced kind of finding, because the 2006 rules as well as the subsequent notification or amendment lays down a period of three months for adjudication of a dispute, but does not lay down any fixed time-frame for raising a grievance against non-selection or mis-selection. After hearing counsel for the parties and perusing the records as well as the protracted litigations which has been going on between the parties, one thing is evident that all has not been well in the manner in which such selections have been carried out. There has been obvious bungling done by the Mukhiya for obvious reasons, which are not difficult to reach now after having examined many many cases of nepotism, at time corruption, in making such selection on a post of a Panchayat Teacher. Obviously, persons with lesser marks have been accommodated for consideration whatever they may be by not holding counseling publicly or maintaining the records fairly and a kind of cat and mouse games has been played in such selections. 6. Public employment is not supposed to be held out in a fashion in which it has been done in the present case. The instances of wrong doing are one of many which has been dealt with by the Appellate Authority in its order dated 27.09.2010. This Court has no hesitation in recording that the whole exercise stands vitiated and a fresh exercise is required to be done as the present dispute can only be resolved and the illegality committed undone by not interfering with the order of the Tribunal. The entire selection made in the Gram Panchayat, Salempur East, Suryagarha, in the district of Lakhisarai is required to be quashed and is quashed. The respondents State authorities are directed to take a decision to fill up the post afresh by calling for fresh applications, where all these applicants or petitioners would be given an opportunity and the counseling etc. must be done under the watchful eye of a responsible officer deputed by the District Magistrate, Lakhisarai. This should be done within a reasonable time-frame as the dispute has dragged on too long by many bouts of litigations over the years. Both the Writ Applications stand dismissed with the observation and direction to fill up the post afresh by a new exercise.