JUDGMENT : Hemant Gupta, J. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the respondents. 2. Order dated 7th of August, 2015 passed by the learned Single Bench of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 12032 of 2015 is subject matter of challenge in the present Letters Patent Appeal, whereby the order passed by the District Teachers Employment Appellate Tribunal dated 21st of July, 2015 was not interfered with. 3. The appellant was appointed as Panchayat Teacher. Such appointment came to be questioned by one Gariban Ranjan and Sanjay Kumar who had filed C.W.J.C. No. 3232 of 2013. The stand of the appellant was that he has been selected in accordance with law. The writ application was allowed and the matter remitted back to the Tribunal to decide the complaint of the petitioner in the said case in the light of the observations and findings given in the order with further direction that Tribunal must make its best of efforts to decide the case expeditiously. Therefore, the Tribunal in the impugned order found that there were many candidates who have obtained higher marks than the appellant in the Scheduled Caste Category who were not given opportunity for counselling and consequently found the appointment of the appellant as untenable. The Tribunal also did not find any merit in the stand of the appellant that candidates higher in merit did not appear though the notices were issued. The learned Tribunal, thus, allowed the appeal and set aside the appointment of the appellant and also directed Sri Vishwanath Paswan to be appointed as a candidate who acquired maximum marks in his category. The learned Tribunal, thus, allowed the appeal and set aside the appointment of the appellant and also directed Sri Vishwanath Paswan to be appointed as a candidate who acquired maximum marks in his category. Relevant part of the findings of the learned Tribunal reads as under:- ^^9- ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ds vkns'k ds vkyksd esa lHkh mPp es/kk vad vH;FkhZx.k dks viuk i{k j[kus gsrq lwpuk fuxZr fd;k x;kA mDr lwpuk ds vk/kkj ij vkosnd fo'oukFk ikloku lquokbZ esa mifLFkr gq;s rFkk viuk izfrosnu lefiZr fd;kA mldk dguk gS fd o"kZ 2008 esa iapk;r f'k{kd ds in ij fu;kstu gsrq viuk vkosnu xzke iapk;r jkt] fla?kkM+k mRrjh] iz[k.M&egqvk] ftykⓈ'kkyh esa fn;k Fkk rFkk mudk uke es/kk lwph ds dzekad 1 ,d ij vafdr gSA ljdkj }kjk fu/kkZfjr frfFk dks os dkmfUlfyax esa Hkh mifLFkr gq,A ijUrq fu;kstu i= forj.k dh frfFk dks tc os fu;kstu i= gsrq fu;kstu bdkbZ ds le{k mifLFkr gq, rks crk;k x;k fd vkt vifjgk;Z dkj.kksa ls fu;kstu i= fuxZr ugha fd;k tk,xkA fu;kstu i= forj.k dh vxyh frfFk fu/kkZfjr gksus ij fu;kstu i= fn;k tk,xkA rnksijkUr fofHkUu mPpkf/kdkfj;ksa ds le{k vkifRr vkosnu fn;k x;k ijUrq dksbZ dkjokbZ ugha dh xbZA ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ds vkns'k ds vkyksd esa fo'oukFk ikloku }kjk vkosnu lefiZr fd;k x;k gS rFkk vuqjks/k fd;k x;k gS fd es/kk lwph ds vkyksd esa fu;kstu i= fuxZr djus dk vkns'k ikfjr fd;k tk,A 10- lHkh i{kksa dks lquk ,oa vfHkys[kksa dk voyksdu fd;kA fu;kstu ls lacaf/kr vfHkys[k ds voyksdu fd;kA fu;kstu ls lacaf/kr vfHkys[k ds voyksdu ls Li"V gS fd oknh ,oa vkosnd fo'oukFk ikloku dks dkmfUlfyax esa vuqifLFkr fn[kyk;k x;k gSA fu;kstu ls lacaf/kr vfHkys[k ls ;g Hkh Li"V gksrk gS fd foi{kh izg~ykn ikloku ls vf/kd izkIr es/kk vad okys lHkh vH;fFkZ;ksa dks mifLFkr ugha fn[kyk;k x;k gS] tks LokHkkfod izrhr ugha gksrk gS lkFk gh fu;kstu bdkbZ dh ea'kk dks Hkh n'kkZrk gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa izfroknh Jh izg~ykn ikloku dk fu;kstu lansgkLin izrhr gksrk gSA^^ 4. Before this Court, the learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the candidates having higher marks were not served is incorrect as the record would show that none has put in appearance even after notices were issued. Before this Court, the learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the candidates having higher marks were not served is incorrect as the record would show that none has put in appearance even after notices were issued. Still further, it is contended that the Tribunal could not direct appointment of Sri Vishwanath Paswan, as the Tribunal has the jurisdiction only to direct the candidate to be appointed on merit and that the Tribunal cannot direct a particular candidate to be appoint. 5. We do not find any merit in the said arguments. 6. In view of the earlier judgment of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 3232 of 2013, the options for appointment were limited. After remand, the Tribunal has found that the candidates higher in merit were not given any notice for counselling and that the entire process adopted was fraudulent. In view of such finding recorded by the Tribunal and affirmed by the learned Single Bench, we do not find any illegality in the order, as candidates higher in merit could not have been ignored for the purposes of appointment as Panchayat Teacher. Still further, the direction of the Tribunal is to appoint a candidate as per the merit-list prepared and in which Vishwanath Paswan happens to be the senior most. Said finding cannot be said to be illegal and unwarranted in any manner which may warrant any interference in the present intra court appeal. 7. The Letters Patent Appeal is, thus, dismissed.