ORDER : Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Assailing the impugned order dated 20.11.2013 passed by the District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority, Katihar (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) in Appeal Case No. 3066 of 2012, Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner cannot be held to be at fault for being appointed on the post of Panchayat Teacher on 01.04.2010 because if there was a ban imposed by the State Government for appointment on the post of Panchayat Teacher of the first phase and yet the authorities of the Panchayat including the Panchayat Secretary on account of his being unaware of such ban has appointed the petitioner, her appointment, later on, could not have been disturbed. Mr. Singh, is therefore of the view that the Tribunal has committed an error in rejecting the claim of the petitioner as against the order of her termination of service. The further submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was not at fault in such appointment has to be also noted for its being rejected. Attractive though the aforementioned submissions may be. 3. Law in this regard has already been settled by a Full Bench of this Court in the case of Bijoy Kumar Bharati & Ors vs the State of Bihar & Ors reported in 1983 PLJR 667 , wherein, the Full Bench had held as follows:- "Now, if the appointment of persons in the first category is terminated, I am of the view that it would not be unfair to terminate such appointments without hearing the persons affected. The illegality or irregularity is at the level of the administrator/appointing authority. No one has a right to be appointed irregularly. His position is that a person who has no right to the post. There is no stigma attached in the removal. Of course, if the authorities proceed on some wrong factual basis or are actuated by malice, or guided by irrelevant considerations and the like, the order of termination may be open to challenge in a Court of law. It was argued that if an opportunity is given to the persons concerned, they may try to convince the authorities that in their discretion they should not take any action in spite of the infirmity or irregularity in the initial appointment. It was argued that if an opportunity is given to the persons concerned, they may try to convince the authorities that in their discretion they should not take any action in spite of the infirmity or irregularity in the initial appointment. Here what an aggrieved party can say before the authorities is that although there is infirmness in the appointment yet please do not terminate the appointment as it would lead to hardship. Such a representation is an appeal to mercy. I do not think, therefore, that in such a situation there is anything unfair in taking the decision without hearing the person likely to be effected." 4. The issue remains confine that the Government had sought to make appointment on the post of Panchayat Teacher in different phases. The first phase of appointment in terms of Bihar Panchayat Teacher Appointment Rules-2006 commenced in the month of October-2006 and on the basis of the panel prepared by the respective appointing unit i.e. the Panchayat, such appointments were to be made only till 20.03.2008 and i.e. how the State Government had in its phased programme communicated to all the appointing unit not to make any such appointment from the panel of the first phase of teachers by its letter dated 16.04.2009. Admittedly, the vacancy on which the petitioner was appointed had itself emerged on 26.10.2009 by way of resignation of one Puja Priyadarshi and therefore, on this vacancy which had taken place after 20.03.2008, no appointment could have been made from the panel of the first phase much less of the petitioner which was made on 01.04.2010. Admittedly, the vacancy on which the petitioner was appointed had itself emerged on 26.10.2009 by way of resignation of one Puja Priyadarshi and therefore, on this vacancy which had taken place after 20.03.2008, no appointment could have been made from the panel of the first phase much less of the petitioner which was made on 01.04.2010. It is this aspect of the matter which will clinch the issue in hand and would also lead to approving the finding of the Tribunal which for the shake of clarity is quoted here-in-below:- ^^eUrO; 5- vfHkys[k dk voyksdu fd;kA mHk; i{kksa dk laiw.kZ cgl lquk vfHkys[k ds voyksdu ls Li”V ds dafMdk 06 esa Li”V fd;k gS fd dk;Zjr f’kf{kr iwtk fç;n’khZ us fnukad 26-10-2009 dk resign fd;k Fkk tks fd fnukad 28-10-2009 dks LohÑr fd;k x;k Fkk] ftls mDr iapk;r ds eqf[k;k ,ao lfpo ds }kjk bls LohÑr fd;k x;k Fkk vkSj mUgksaus ;g Hkh Li”V fd;k gS fd ekuo lalk/ku fodkl foHkkx fcgkj iVuk dk i=kad 496 fnukad 16-04-2009 ml le; mls çkIr ugh gqvk FkkA vr% vihykFkhZ laxhrk dqekjh dks fnukad 01-04-2010 dks fu;kstu i= fuxZr fd;k x;kA vfHkys[k ls ;g Hkh Li”V gS fd ftyk dk;ZØe inkf/kdkjh LFkkiuk dfVgkj ds i=kad 1775 LFkkiuk fnukad 04-04-2012 ds }kjk ç[kaM f’k{kk inkf/kdkjh efugkjh dks funsZ’k fn;k x;k gS fd ç/kku lfpo ekuo lalk/ku fodkl foHkkx fcgkj iVuk ds i=kad 496 fnukad 16-04-2009 ds }kjk ;g fcYdqy Li”V dj fn;k x;k gS fd çFke pj.k dk fu;kstu fnukad 20-03-2008 dks lekIr gks x;kA blds ckn dksà Hkh fu;kstu iwoZ ds fjDr in ij fu;kstu ugh fd;k tk ldrk gSA vr% ç[kaM f’k{kk inkf/kdkjh efugkjh dk i=kad 200 fnukad ^0-04-2012 fcYdqy U;k;ksfpr gS vkSj mUgksaus tks funsZ’k vius i= ds }kjk fn;k gS fd vihykFkhZ dk fu;kstu foHkkxh; fu;e ds çfrdwy gS] blfy, bldk ekuns; dk Hkqxrku ugh fd;k tkuk gS vkSj mUgksaus ;g Hkh Li”V fd;k gS fd ;fn fu;kstu bdkà iw.kZr% mRrjnk;h gksxhA mUgksaus ;g Hkh Li”V fd;k fd foHkkxh; fu;e@vuqns’k ds vkyksd esa vfu;fer vFkok voS/k fu;kstu dks fof/klEer dkjZokà ds rgr jn~n dj vuqikyu lqfuf’pr fd;k tk; vkSj mUgksaus ;g Hkh funsZ’k fn;k fd Hkfo”; esa muds ekuns; gsrq vkoaVu dh ekax vFkok Hkqxrku ugh fd;k tk,xk] ftldh çfrfyfi fo}ku ftyk f’k{kk inkf/kdkjh] dfVgkj dh lsok esa vko’;d dkjZokà gsrq lefiZr fd;k x;k vkSj bldh çfrfyfi vihykFkhZ laxhrk dqekjh dks Hkh fn;k x;k ,oa m0 e0 fo|ky; dks funsZ’k fn;k x;k fd laxhrk dqekjh dk vfu;fer fu;kstu dk ekeyk gS blfy, mls fo|ky; esa mifLFkfr iath ij rRdkyhd çHkko ls jksd yxk;k x;kA ,slh ifrfLFkfr esa ekuo lalk/ku fodkl foHkkx fcgkj iVuk dk i=kad 7@fo&1&233@08&496 fcgkj ljdkj fnukad 16-04-2009 dh xà Fkh] tks fu;ekuqdqy ugh gSA mijksä ifjfLFkfr dks ns[krs gq, mDr i= ds vkyksd esa vihykFkhZ dk nkok [kkfjt fd;k tkrk gS ,oa ç[kaM f’k{kk inkf/kdkjh efugkjh ds of.kZr vkns’k dks laiq”V fd;k tkrk gS tks fd fu;ekuqdqy gSA** . 5. In the considered opinion of this Court, the Tribunal has correctly gone into the issue and decided the same strictly in accordance with law. Such well considered order of the Tribunal would not require any interference of this Court. 6. That being so, this application is wholly misconceived and is, accordingly, dismissed.