ORDER : 1. The appellant herein, Amrendra Kumar, was appointed as Shiksha Mitra, on 01.03.2003, for a period of eleven months. By an order, made on 01.03.2004, the services of the appellant, Amrendra Kumar, was extended for another eleven months. Though treated as an extension of the appointment of the appellant, the order, dated 01.03.2004, was, in fact, a fresh appointment of the appellant, as a Shiksha Mitra, for a period of 11 months inasmuch as the tenure of his appointment, as Shiksha Mitra, made by virtue of the order, dated 01.03.2003, had elapsed on 31.01.2004. 2. Be that as it may, the appellant took admission, in a College, to pursue Intermediate Course during the academic session 2003-2004, the admission having been taken without obtaining any permission, in writing, from the authorities concerned. 3. By its resolution, dated 11.08.2004, the State Government prescribed passing of Intermediate Examination as the minimum academic qualification for a person to be appointed as Shiksha Mitra. Thus, with effect from 11.08.2004, passing of Intermediate Examination became a condition precedent for appointment on the post of Shiksha Mitra. 4. Since the appointment of the appellant was for a period of eleven months by virtue of the second order, dated 01.03.2004, the period expired on 31.01.2005 and, thereafter, his appointment was not extended further and it was on 07.06.2005 that the result of the Intermediate Examination of the appellant was published and the appellant was found to have passed the Intermediate Examination. 5. As the appellant, according to the respondents, had not been working in the School since after 01.02.2005, an advertisement to fill up the post of Shiksha Mitra, in the said School, in respect of four posts, including the post, which the appellant, at one point of time, holding, was published on 04.02.2006. Pursuant to the said advertisement, the private respondent herein, Bhuneshwar Kumar, amongst others, applied. In course of time and on completion of the selection process, private respondent herein, Bhuneshwar Kumar, came to be appointed, on 13.02.2006, against the post, which had fallen vacant, because of the fact that the appellant had left the post. 6. Neither the advertisement, dated 04.02.2006, aforementioned, nor the selection process, which had ensued thereafter, culminating into the appointment of the appellant, was, at any stage, challenged or assailed, at any forum, by the appellant. 6. Neither the advertisement, dated 04.02.2006, aforementioned, nor the selection process, which had ensued thereafter, culminating into the appointment of the appellant, was, at any stage, challenged or assailed, at any forum, by the appellant. Consequent thereupon, the private respondent herein joined the post of Shiksha Mitra on 16.02.2006. 7. However, on 16.09.2006, appointment of the private respondent to the said post was cancelled and the appellant, Amrendra Kumar, was appointed. 8. The cancellation of his own appointment as well as the appointment of the present appellant came to be impugned by the private respondent herein in a writ petition made under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which gave rise to CWJC No. 4632 of 2007; but the said writ petition was, on 22.06.2011, disposed of, on the same having been withdrawn by the private respondent in order to take recourse to the provisions of the Recruitment Rules namely Bihar Panchayat Elementary Teachers (Employment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2006, and, upon withdrawal of his writ petition, the private respondent herein, who was writ petitioner in CWJC No. 4632 of 2007, preferred an appeal before the District Teacher Employment Appellate Authority (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Appellate Authority’), which came to be registered as Case No. 73 of 2011. 9. By its order, dated 07.02.2012, the learned Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal of the private respondent herein. While dismissing the said appeal by its order, dated 07.02.2012, the learned Appellate Authority also took note of the fact that as far as the present appellant, Amrendra Kumar, was concerned, he could not have attended and passed Intermediate Examination, while working, as a Shiksha Mitra, in the School, where the appellant herein had been, initially, appointed, as a Shiksha Mitra, on 01.03.2003. 10. By its order, dated 07.02.2012, aforementioned, the learned Appellate Authority, therefore, set aside the appointment of the present appellant, too, made to the post of Shiksha Mitra and/or Panchayat Teacher and further, taking into account the fact that the appellant herein could not have, while being a teacher in the School, in question, passed Intermediate Examination as a regular student, the learned Appellate Authority directed that a First information Report be lodged as to how the appellant herein passed the Intermediate Examination. The relevant observations made, and the directions given, by the learned Appellate Authority in its order, dated 07.02.2012, read as under:- ^^i=kad 4253 izs"kd%& Jh fot; dqekj >k ftyk f'k{kk v/kh{kd x;kA lsok esa] eqf[k;k ,oa iapk;r lfpo xzke iapk;r :iliqj fVdkjh x;kA fnukad 18 twu 2007 fo"k; %& Jh vejsUnz dqekj firk Jh jkey[ku flag 'kkL=h] ia0 f'k0 mRØ0 e0 fo0 :iliqj dks fd;s x;s voS/k Hkqxrku ds laca/k esaA egk'k;] mi;qZDr fo"k; ds lanHkZ esa vaduh; gS fd xzke iapk;r :iliqj iz[kaM fVdkjh ds varxZr mRØ0 e0 fo0 :iliqj ds iapk;r f'k{kd ds :i esa fu;ksftr Jh vejsUnz dqekj firk Jh jkey[ku flag 'kkL=h dks vki yksxksa ds }kjk ekuns; dk Hkqxrku fd;k x;k gS tcfd Jh vejsUnz dqekj us 'kghn txnso Lekjd egkfo|ky;] dqFkkZ ¼vjoy½ ls l= 2003&05 esa fu;fer Nk= ds :i eas b.Vj dyk dh ijh{kk mrh.kZ dh gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa budk ,d gh le; esa vius fo|ky; ¼dk;Z LFky½ ,oa egkfo|ky; esa Hkh mifLFkr jguk iw.kZr% tkylkth dk ekeyk curk gSA vr,o buds izek.k&i=ksa ,oa vad i=ksa dh tkap fcgkj b.Vj dkamfUly ls djokosa] rFkk ;g lR; ik;k tkrk gS fd mUgs 2003&05 eas fu;fer Nk= ds :i esa b.VjfefM,V dyk dh ijh{kk mrh.kZrk izkIr dh gS buds mij rqajr izkFkfedh ntZ dj vxzsrj dkjZokbZ djsaA vU;Fkk voS/k Hkqxrku ds fy, vki ij dkjZokbZ dh tk;sxhA fo'oklHkktu ¼fot; dqekj >k½ ftyk f'k{kk v/kh{kd] x;kA Kkikad 4253@x;k fnukad 18 twu 2007** 11. Aggrieved by the decision of the Appellate Authority, the private respondent herein, Bhuneshwar Kumar, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which came to be registered as CWJC No. 4853 of 2012, wherein the challenge, inter-alia, was the termination of his appointment to the post of Panchayat Teacher. 12. As against the termination of his appointment by order, dated 07.02.2012, passed by the learned Appellate Authority and also the direction, which had been given to lodge a First information Report in the circumstances as mentioned above, the appellant herein, namely, Amrendra Kumar, too, filed a writ petition, which gave rise to CWJC No. 4226 of 2012. 13. By a common order, dated 20.09.2014, both the writ petitions have been disposed by a learned Single Judge of this Court. 13. By a common order, dated 20.09.2014, both the writ petitions have been disposed by a learned Single Judge of this Court. While the present appellant’s writ petition, namely, CWJC No. 4226 of 2012, has been dismissed, the order, dated 07.02.2012, has been interfered with, so far as the same relates to the private respondent herein, inasmuch as the private respondent’s appointment was, according to the learned Single Judge, illegally terminated and the present appellant’s appointment to the said post ought not to have been made. 14. Aggrieved by dismissal of his writ petition, this appeal has been preferred by Amrendra Kumar, i.e. the petitioner in CWJC No. 4226 of 2012. 15. We have heard Mr. Bindhyachal Singh, learned counsel for the appellant, and Mr. Ram Bilash Roy, learned counsel for respondent No. 10. None has appeared on behalf of the State. 16. While considering the present appeal, what needs to be borne in the mind that the appellant herein was, admittedly, appointed, on 01.03.2003, as a Shiksha Mitra for a period of eleven months and after his appointment, made for the said period, had already elapsed on 31.01.2004, another order was made, on 01.03.2004, extending his services as a Shiksha Mitra by a further period of eleven months. It is also not in dispute that the appellant took admission, in a College, to pursue Intermediate Course during the academic session 2003- 2004 and it was on 11.08.2004 that the passing of Intermediate Examination came to be made as the minimum academic qualification for appointment on the post of Shiksha Mitra. Nor is it in dispute that since after 01.03.2004, the appellant’s service was not extended; rather, on 04.02.2006, an advertisement was published to fill up four vacancies in the posts of Shiksha Mitra and these vacancies included the vacancy, which had occurred due to the fact that the appellant had left the job. The selection process, which was so set into motion, resulted, inter-alia, in the appointment of the private respondent herein, on 13.02.2006, as a Shiksha Mitra, which was not challenged by the appellant. 17. The selection process, which was so set into motion, resulted, inter-alia, in the appointment of the private respondent herein, on 13.02.2006, as a Shiksha Mitra, which was not challenged by the appellant. 17. As already indicated above, neither the advertisement aforementioned nor the selection process ever came to be challenged by the present appellant and it was more than 6 (six) months after the private respondent had joined the post, in question, on 16.02.2006, that the appointment of the private respondent was terminated on 16.09.2006 and the present appellant was re-appointed. 18. Termination of his own appointment and the re-appointment of the present appellant was, initially, challenged by the private respondent by way of a writ petition, which gave rise to CWJC No. 4632 of 2007, and, on withdrawal thereof, an appeal was preferred before the Appellate Authority, which came to be registered as Case No. 73 of 2011. 19. Considering the fact that when an advertisement was published, on 04.02.2006, to fill up the vacancies aforementioned and no objection had been raised by the present appellant nor was the selection process, which had ensued thereafter leading to the appointment of the private respondent, was challenged, the learned Appellate Authority has erred seriously in interfering with the appointment of the private respondent. In other words, the learned Appellate Authority out to have, as has been rightly concluded by the learned Single Judge, set aside the appointment of the present appellant and directed reinstatement of the private respondent on the post of Panchayat Teacher. 20. From the narration of the facts, which have led to the present appeal, it also becomes abundantly clear that as far as the present appellant was concerned, he did not participate in any selection process and he could not have dislodged the private respondent and could not have been legally appointed on 16.09.2006. The present appellant’s appointment being clearly illegal, the learned Appellate Authority committed no error in setting aside the appointment of the present appellant and the learned Single judge was wholly correct in upholding the decision on the aspect of the Appellate Authority’s order setting aside the appointment of the appellant herein on the post of Shiksha Mitra, later on, named as Panchayat Teacher. 21. 21. So far as the learned Appellate Authority’s direction to lodge First information Report is concerned, we find that the learned Appellate Authority has observed that it was reasonably not possible for a person to have pursued teaching in a School and, at the same time, passing the Intermediate Examination as a regular student. It is also surrounded in mystery as to how the appellant herein received payment of salary from time to time as Shiksha Mitra or Panchayat Teacher, when he had been pursuing the academic course of Intermediate Examination as a regular student. The learned Single Judge is, therefore, not incorrect in observing that the case at hand needs supervision by the competent authority by way of investigation and also administrative action. 22. It is submitted, on behalf of the appellant, that there are many teachers, who have pursued and passed Intermediate Examination in the same manner as the appellant has done and they are still allowed to function as teachers. In fact, this aspect of the submission has already been noted by the learned Single Judge and rejected on the ground that any illegality, which might have been committed in the case of another person, could not vest any right in the present appellant to demand similar treatment. 23. Situated thus, we do not find any infirmity, legal or factual, in the conclusions reached and the decision given by the learned Single Judge in the writ petition, namely, CWJC No. 4226 of 2012, so far as the learned Appellate Authority’s order, dated 07.02.2012, relating to the case of the present appellant, is concerned. 24. Because of what have been discussed and pointed out above, we find this appeal wholly without merit. 25. This appeal, therefore, fails and shall accordingly stand dismissed. 26. No orders as to cost.