ORAL ORDER 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the private respondent as well as the State. 2. Petitioner has assailed Annexure- 9, dated 8.2.2010, which is the order passed by the District Teacher Employment Appellate Authority, Sitamarhi in Case No.104 of 2009. The dispute relates to the appointment on the post of a Panchayat Teacher carried out in the year 2006, for which private respondent no.9 filed a case before the Tribunal in the year 2009 alleging that even though he had higher marks, his appointment has not been made. The Tribunal accepting his assertion as gospel truth, set aside the appointment of the petitioner and directed appointment of the private respondent to be made. 3. Counsel for the petitioner submits many a things which are not required to be noticed except the fact that the private respondent moved the Tribunal only in the year 2009 seeking a direction for his appointment on the sole ground that the petitioner had lesser percentage of marks, which is 69.58% whereas the private respondent has 70.30% marks. 4. Counsel representing the private respondent submits that in the counter affidavit he has brought evidence to show that he had made complaints before the DSE, Sitamarhi and the District Magistrate, Sitamarhi in the year 2007 itself but since those authorities slept over the matter, private respondent ultimately having been left with no option, decided to invoke the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. It is also the private respondent’s stand that he has obtained information under the Right to Information Act and only when he got adequate evidence, he decided to move the Tribunal. 5. There are two aspects, which are not satisfactory in the adjudication process of the Tribunal. One, that the private respondent, who was looking for an opening as a Panchayat Teacher, is not even aware of the designated authority before whom such complaints were required to be made. As per rules in existence then, it was the Block Development Officer alone, who was vested with the authority of listening to such complaints and adjudicate the same. There is nothing on record to show that the private respondent even remotely approached such an authority with his grievance. Therefore, whatever evidence he has brought with regard to other authority is suspect or as well as knocking at the wrong doors to no avail. 6. There is nothing on record to show that the private respondent even remotely approached such an authority with his grievance. Therefore, whatever evidence he has brought with regard to other authority is suspect or as well as knocking at the wrong doors to no avail. 6. It is a fact that more than three years have gone past since appointment was made. The affidavit on behalf of official respondents indicate that the private respondent was not part of the process of selection at any point of time and only when he could zero down on a target, who was appointed with lesser marks than him, he decided to file a case before the Tribunal and the Tribunal without hesitating has annulled the appointment of the petitioner and directed for appointment of the private respondent, who has not been on the scene for more than three years. 7. In addition to that, this Court is constrained to record that it is neither the business nor the competence or the power vested in the Tribunal to give a direction for appointment of any person when even the High Court or Hon’ble Supreme Court are circumspect in giving such kind of direction. At the most there could have been a direction to the concerned authority to fill up the post afresh. Therefore creating a right in favour of a person and issuing a kind of direction for appointment is totally uncalled for or smacks of indiscretion on the part of the Tribunal. 8. The impugned order contained in Annexure- 9 is required to be interfered with. The same is quashed. The writ application is allowed. Petitioner will be put back in service forthwith now.