ORDER Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the impugned order passed by the District Teachers Employment Appellate Tribunal, Bhojpur hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal at Arrah dated 11.04.2012 in Appeal No. 69 of 2012 (Bilkis Anisa vs Panchayat Sachiv, Kakila Panchayat, Prakhand Jagdishpur, District Bhojpur) has submitted that the said order is bad only because the petitioner was never given notice and/or opportunity of hearing by the Tribunal and yet it is her appointment which has been cancelled by the tribunal by directing the authorities to appoint respondent no. 9 (Bilkis Anisa). 3. Counsel for the respondents are not in a position to controvert this aspect that the petitioner was neither given notice and/or afforded opportunity of hearing by the tribunal. 4. Normally, in such a situation the impugned order had to be quashed while remitting the matter back to the tribunal but there is something startling in this case which would refrain this Court to exercise its discretionary power in favour of a person against whom there is serious allegation of committing forgery in league with Panchayat Secretary. Whatever documents has been brought on record by respondent no. 9 in the counter affidavit, would not only support the findings recorded by the Tribunal, which while setting aside the appointment of the petitioner and directing appointment of Respondent no. 9 in his place had also issued consequential direction to the District Education Officer, Bhojpur at Arrah to lodge an F.I.R against the Panchayat Secretary for doing bungling and forging the records for favouring the appointment of the petitioner because it had found the entire records of selection to be vitiated on account of tampering and interpolation on a massive scale. The Tribunal in this regard in the impugned order has recorded its findings in the following terms:- ^^nksuksa i{kksa dks lquus ds i'pkr~ muds }kjk lefiZr dkxtkrksa dk voyksdu fd;kA vkosfndk foyfdl vuhlk }kjk lefiZr dkmalfyax ,oa p;u lwph dh Nk;k izfr ls Li"V gS fd dkmaflafyax esa vkosfndk dk uke 7osa LFkku ij gS] tcfd p;u lwph esa NBs dzekad ij gSA flrkjk ckuks ftudks mnwZ f'k{kd ds fy, p;u fd;k x;k gS] dk uke u rks dkmaflafyax esa gS] vkSj u p;u lwph esa gh] nksuksa lwph ij izŒ lfpo foUns'ojh izŒ flag ^gŒ deZpkjh* dk gLrk{kj gSA izŒ iaŒ lŒ foUns'ojh iŒ flaag }kjk izkjafHkd f'k{kd fu;kstu iath 2008 miLFkkfir fd;k x;kA iath esa dkmaflafyax ds dzekad 7 ,oa p;u lwph ds dzekad 6 ij flrkjk ckuks ds uke vafdr gS] rFkk mu ij Hkh foUns'ojh izŒ flag dk gLrk{kj gSA vkosfndk dk uke u rks dkmaflafyax vkSj u p;u lwph esa gh ntZ gS] tcfd mudk uke vkosnu izkfIr dh lwph esa gSA nksuksa i{kksa }kjk lefiZr lwph ds voyksdu ls Li"V gS fd iŒ iapk;r lfpo] dchyk Jh foUns'ojh iŒ flag }kjk izkjafHkd f'k{kd fu;kstu iath&2008 ls fu/kkZfjr frfFk ij iwoZ esa dh x;h dkmaflafyax ,oa p;u lwph dks gVkdj flrkjk ckuksa dks ykHk igq¡pkus ds mn~ns'; ls dkmaflafyax ,oa p;u lwph okn esa iath esa NsM+&NkM+ dj cny fn;k x;k gSA dkmaflafyax esa vH;fFkZ;ksa dk gLrk{kj ls gh Li"V gksrk gS fd mudk gLrk{kj ,d&nks O;fDr;ksa us feydj dj fn;k gSA vkosfndk }kjk lefiZr lwph ,oa iaŒ laŒ ds iath ls Nk;k izfr ftyk f'k{kk inkŒ Hkkstiqj dks Hkstrs gq, tkapksijkUr izHkkjh lfpo] foUns'ojh izŒ flag ds fo:n~/k vijkf/kd eqdnek ntZ djus gsrq funs'k HkstsA eSa iw.kZ:i ls vkosfndk dh ckrksa ls lger gwW fd iaŒ lfpo dchyk }kjk vkosfndk dk dkmaflfyax ds i'pkr ,oa p;u lwph esa uke jgus ds ckotwn mudks fu;kstu i= u nsdj oSls vH;FkhZ dks mnwZ f'k{kd ds fy, fu;kstu i= fn;k ftUgksaus u rks dkmaflfyax esa Hkkx fy;k vkSj u mudks mnwZ f'k{kd ds fy, p;u fd;k x;k Fkk mi;qZDr ifjfLFkfr esa fu;ksftr f'kf{kdk flrkjk ckuks fiŒ vgen vCckl dk fu;kstu jn~n fd;k tkrk gSA muds LFkku ij foyfd'k vuhlk] oYn beke dk fu;kstu ,d i{k ds vUnj djuk iapk;r fu;kstu bdkbZ lqfuf'pr djsaA 5. In such a situation, this Court is not inclined to allow the claim of the petitioner for the present by setting aside the order of the Tribunal specially when the petitioner has already been removed from service and in her place respondent no. 9 has already been appointed by way of compliance of the aforesaid direction of the Tribunal in the impugned order. 6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner however is confident that whatever finding has been recorded by the Tribunal is neither factually correct nor legally sustainable. He would also submit that since he has not received the copy of the counter affidavit filed by respondent no.9 therefore, he is not in a position to comment on the same. 7. In the considered opinion of this Court the peculiar facts as noted above would require the Tribunal to rehear the petitioner and Respondent no. 9 apart from the authorities of the Panchayat on the issue of appointment on the post of Panchayat Teacher in question. The petitioner will have the liberty to file her rejoinder meeting the issues raised by the private respondent no. 9 not only in her complaint before the Tribunal but also those stated in the counter affidavit filed by Respondent no. 9, a copy whereof has just now been handed over to the learned counsel for the petitioner. The Tribunal on receipt of such rejoinder of the petitioner would consider the matter afresh and if it finds that its earlier findings in the impugned order were based on the correct appreciation of the documents, it would simply dispose of the matter by reiterating the earlier order but if it finds any merit in the contention of the petitioner that her documents were not forged and that the petitioner had filed her application and was also called by giving her notice to appear in the counselling and that she had appeared in the counselling and further her name was included in the merit list, whereafter she was again given notice to appear for collecting the appointment letter, the Tribunal may recall the order passed earlier by directing reinstatement of the petitioner and removal of the Respondent no. 9. Till it is done so, respondent no. 9 shall continue to work, but the continuance of respondent no. 9 in service shall be subject to the final outcome of the Tribunal's fresh order as indicated above. 8. 9. Till it is done so, respondent no. 9 shall continue to work, but the continuance of respondent no. 9 in service shall be subject to the final outcome of the Tribunal's fresh order as indicated above. 8. In the event the Tribunal shall reiterate its finding including its direction for lodging of the F.I.R, the concerned District Education Officer, must take the resultant action not only against the Panchayat Secretary but also against any other person including the petitioner if found responsible for committing such tampering/forgery in the records. 9. Counsel for the petitioner and respondent no. 9 have submitted that both will appear before the Tribunal on 19th August 2013. The Tribunal thereafter will fix any date for rehearing the parties but it must make best of its endeavours to conclude its hearing and decide the matter as directed above within a period of four months from the date of appearance of both the petitioner and respondent no. 9. 10. With the aforementioned observations and direction, this application is disposed of.