JUDGMENT : Shivaji Pandey, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. In the present case, the petitioner is challenging an order dated 12.12.2012 passed by the District Teachers Employment Appellate Tribunal, Bhojpur, Ara in Case No. 98 of 2012 by which the appeal preferred by the respondent no.7 in the light of the order dated 27.8.2012 passed by the Hon'ble Patna High Court in CWJC Nos. 12839 of 2012 and 14929 of 2012 has been allowed and the Panchayat Shikshak Employment Unit, Kataria has been directed to ensure appointment of the respondent no.7 after getting her counselling done. 3. The present matter relates to appointment of Panchayat Teacher of Kataria Gram Panchayat, Dist. Bhojpur with respect to second phase of appointment. The Government of Bihar issued a public notice dated 25.8.2008 vide notification no. 1351, issued a guideline for the appointment of Panchayat Teacher, prescribed the date of receipt of application, publication of merit list and date of counselling. The petitioner and private respondent have applied for the post of Panchayat Teacher. As both were the member of Backward Category, admittedly the date of counselling was fixed on 28.2.2009. Accordingly, all the candidates were required to appear in the counselling. The present petitioner, having 51.80% of marks in Intermediate, participated in the counselling but, the respondent no.7, having 59.11% of marks, remained absent from counselling. In absence of respondent no.7, namely, Shila Kumari, the present petitioner was selected, she gave her consent, accordingly, appointment letter dated 14.8.2010 was issued in her favour and she was allotted New Primary School, Kosiadwa Tola, in pursuance thereof, she joined the post. The respondent no.7 approached to the appellate tribunal in Appeal Case No. 676 of 2009 making complaint that she belongs to Backward Category, had filed her application in the office of Block Development Officer, Piro but, that application was not traceable and as such her application was not available, the same could be accepted on her affidavit. The Appellate Tribunal vide order could 16.7.2010 directed the respondent authority to get her name listed in the merit list at proper place and her counselling should be done. In the meantime, the present petitioner joined the post. The Appellate Tribunal vide order could 16.7.2010 directed the respondent authority to get her name listed in the merit list at proper place and her counselling should be done. In the meantime, the present petitioner joined the post. The private respondent no.7 again approached to the Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No. 20 of 2010 which was disposed of vide order dated 3.12.2010 recorded his earlier order, found that without holding the counselling, the present petitioner was appointed which is bad in law, stayed the appointment of the present petitioner as well as directed for initiation of a departmental proceeding against the Panchayat Secretary, Katariya. Shila Kumari, respondent no.7 again approached to the Appellate Tribunal in Case No. 105 of 2011 making complaint that the person (petitioner) having lesser percentage of marks has been appointed and she has been left out, whereupon, the Appellate Tribunal directed the Authority for appointment of respondent no.7 subject to pendency of any case before the Appellate Tribunal or any person having higher marks than her, earlier appointee will be treated to have been terminated from service. The private respondent no.7 as well as present petitioner approached this Court in CWJC No. 12839 of 2012 and CWJC No. 14929 of 2012. The respondent no.7 raised a grievance, the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal in her favour has not been complied with whereas the present petitioner raised a grievance that she was not made party and an ex-parte order has been passed without giving an opportunity of hearing and the matter was remitted back for fresh consideration. It will be better to quote relevant portion of the order, which reads as follows :- "----- The parties are directed to appear before the District Teachers Employment Appellate Tribunal at Bhojpur along with a copy of the present order on the 10th of September. The order has been passed in presence of the counsel for the petitioner and the intervener respondent. The Tribunal shall then proceed to fix a date of its convenience for hearing in presence of both parties. The Tribunal shall ten endeavour to finally dispose of the matter afresh after hearing the parties by a reasoned and speaking order disclosing full application of mind, especially to the facts of the case, within a maximum period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. This writ application stands disposed." 4. The Tribunal shall ten endeavour to finally dispose of the matter afresh after hearing the parties by a reasoned and speaking order disclosing full application of mind, especially to the facts of the case, within a maximum period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. This writ application stands disposed." 4. After remand, the Appellate Tribunal again considered the matter and found that as the respondent no.7 has higher marks than to the petitioner and she was wrongly been deprived of the counselling, entitled for appointment as a Panchayat Teacher. Being aggrieved by this order, the petitioner approached in the present writ application and, during pendency of the writ application, the services of the present petitioner has been dispensed with challenged the same through I.A. No. 3746 of 2014. From perusal of the impugned order, it is apparent that the petitioner has taken a ground before the Appellate Tribunal that the respondent no.7 had not filed application for her appointment and question of calling her for counselling did not arise but the Appellate Tribunal found that she had applied for the post and her name was standing in the Register, so much, having higher marks than the present petitioner, her deprivation for counselling is illegal, directed for fresh counselling and her appointment but, later on, learned counsel for the petitioner has conceded that she had applied for the post of Panchayat Teacher but, she did not participate in the counselling. 5. The only dispute left for this Court is to decide, as to whether on the day of counselling the respondent no.7 was present and participated therein. As per case of the present petitioner, on the day of counselling, the respondent no.7 was absent though she has a better marks as she remained absent and counselling was done in her favour and, after receiving the consent, the present petitioner was appointed which has been challenged by the respondent no.7. 6. It will be relevant to record the findings of the Tribunal, while allowing the appeal of the respondent no.7, recorded that she was not called for counselling, for that she had approached the Tribunal in Case No. 676 of 2009. 6. It will be relevant to record the findings of the Tribunal, while allowing the appeal of the respondent no.7, recorded that she was not called for counselling, for that she had approached the Tribunal in Case No. 676 of 2009. It would be relevant to quote relevant portion of the order of the Tribunal relating to participation of the respondent no.7, which reads as follows :- **&&&& vihykFkhZ fiNM+k laoxZ ds vizf'kf{kr vH;FkhZ gSA bUgsa 2008 f'k{kd fu;kstu gsrq vkosnu i= iz[kaM f'k{kk inkf/kdkjh] ihjks ds dk;kZy; esa fnukad 12-11-2008 dks fn;k Fkk] ftldh izkfIr jlhn 2177&, gSA ia0 lfpo@dVfj;k }kjk izLrqr fu;kstu iath ls Li"V gS fd budk vkosnu i= iz0f'k0 ink0] ihjks }kjk iapk;r esa Hkstk x;k] ftldk dzekad 240 gSA fiNM+k oxZ ¼laoxZ esa bUgsa lokZf/kd vad 56-11 izfr'kr½ baVj gS] tcfd dq0 ykyerh dks 51-80 izfr'kr gh gSA fnukad 28-02-2009 ds dkmflafyax esa vihykFkhZ dks ugha cqyk;k x;k ftlds fy, buds }kjk fof/kor~ izkf/kdkj esa le; vihy nk;j fd;k x;k] ftlesa ia0 bdkbZ dVfj;k dks fu;ekuqlkj i{k cuk;k x;k] ftlds ia0 bZdkbZ dVfj;k dks fu;ekuqlkj i{k cuk;k x;kA mDr vihyokn 676@09 esa foi{kh dks i{k cukus dk dksbZ iz'u gh ugha mBrk gS] D;ksafd ,d in ds fy, 10] vH;fFkZ;ksa dk dkmUflfyax gksuk FkkA pwWafd fiNM+s oxZ laoxZ esa bUgsa lokZf/kd vad Fkk] budk dkmUlfyax dj p;u i= nsuk ,oa fu;ksftr djuk iapk;r bZdkbZ & dVfj;k dk drZO; Fkk] ftldk fuoZgu muds }kjk ugha fd;k x;k&&&&&A** **&&&&&vihykFkhZ 'khyk dqekjh }kjk iz0 f'k{kk ink0] ihjks ds dk;kZy; esa lle; vkosnu i= fn;k x;k Fkk] tks lle; iapk;r dk;kZy; esa izfo"V gks x;kA vf/kd vad jgus ds i'pkr~ Hkh ia0 bZdkbZ] dVfj;k }kjk vihykFkhZ dks dkmflafyax gsrq ugha cqyk;k x;k] tks xyr gSA vkosfndk dks foi{kh dqekjh ykyerh ls vf/kd vad Hkh gSA** 7. As it appears from the order dated 16.7.2010 passed in Appeal Case No. 676 of 2009, the appellate tribunal has passed order that the respondent no.7 happens to be female candidate of backward class and she had filed an application before the Block Education Officer but, the same was not received by the Panchayat. The respondent no.7 has got 59.11% of the marks whereas the person appointed in the category is holding 51.80%, directed that within one week, her name should be recorded in the merit list and her counselling should be done. The respondent no.7 has got 59.11% of the marks whereas the person appointed in the category is holding 51.80%, directed that within one week, her name should be recorded in the merit list and her counselling should be done. This order also discloses that the Appellate Tribunal has directed for holding the counselling of the respondent no.7. In the order dated 3.12.2010 in Appeal No. 20 of 2010, it has been recorded that from the documentary evidence without carrying out the order passed in Case No. 676 of 2009, appointed the Panchayat Teacher which is illegal and passed an order of stay against the present petitioner. This order also discloses that the counselling of the respondent no.7 was not conducted. The order dated 17.6.2011 in Case No. 105 of 2011 shows that the order passed in Case No. 676 of 2009 was not carried out and the Court allowed the appeal of respondent no.7, giving direction for her appointment subject to any person holding higher marks. This matter went to High Court and the same was remanded back whereas the application filed by the respondent no.7 before the Block Development Officer dated 3.3.2009, where she has stated that on 28.2.2009 she appeared in the counselling but, for ulterior motive and for manipulation of the record, the register supplied by the Department where the counselling was to be conducted was not used for counselling for the respondent no.7, rather on the plain register, her signature was obtained. At the bottom-left side, the Block Development Officer has put his entries with his signature. The entry made in the said application indicates that Block Development Officer directed to Block Education Officer to make enquiry and submit report forthwith. The petitioner doubted the authenticity of this document whereupon this Court directed the Block Development Officer to verify the genuineness of the document. The Block Education Officer, Piro filed two affidavits, in 1st affidavit dated 4.5.2016, it has been stated in paragraph no.7 that the Respondent No.7 submitted the application on 3.3.2009 and matter was referred to Block Education Extension Officer for enquiry on the same date. In paragraph no.8, it has been stated that after forwarding the aforesaid application for enquiry, by that time the Appellate Tribunal came into existence, the Block Development Officer sent the matter to Appellate Tribunal. At present, no record is available in the office. 8. In paragraph no.8, it has been stated that after forwarding the aforesaid application for enquiry, by that time the Appellate Tribunal came into existence, the Block Development Officer sent the matter to Appellate Tribunal. At present, no record is available in the office. 8. Another affidavit has been filed on 1.7.2016, in paragraph no.8, it has been said, deponent verified the letter no. 149 dated 4.3.2009, got information telephonically from the then Block Development Officer that he had received the complaint of respondent no.7, referred the matter to Block Education Extension Officer for enquiry. In view of the aforesaid affidavits, the genuineness of the application dated 3.3.2009 of the respondent no.7 cannot be doubted. 9. When she raised objection, the Secretary and Mukhia, gave their explanation that the plain register is the proper register and the said counselling was done in absence of the photographer and observer ¼i;Zos{kd½ . Thus, on perusal of this letter addressed to the Block Development Officer, Piro, Bhojpur, it shows that on 28.2.2009, the counselling of the respondent no.7 was done in the plain Register i.e. before the first order passed in Appeal Case No. 676 of 2009. With the same fact, the respondent no.7 also filed an application before the District Education Extension Officer, Piro, Bhojpur, same thing was also narrated in the application addressed to the District Magistrate. An application dated 4.3.2009 was also filed before the Appellate Authority wherein same thing was reiterated. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has taken a plea that the findings recorded by the Appellate Tribunal of refusing to hold counselling of the respondent no.7 is completely illegal and perverse in view of the fact that all through the respondent no.7 has taken a plea that her counselling was conducted on 28.2.2009 but, in a separate plain register. The same plea has been taken before the Appellate Tribunal but, the fact remains that the intention of the petitioner in the application addressed to the successive authority to show that the counselling, conducted in the plain register, is no counselling at all. The same plea has been taken before the Appellate Tribunal but, the fact remains that the intention of the petitioner in the application addressed to the successive authority to show that the counselling, conducted in the plain register, is no counselling at all. The Tribunal was required to examine the fact about the veracity of the statement of the respondent no.7 as she has consistently taken a plea that she was present on 28.2.2009 and the Authority obtained the signature in plain Register, the Tribunal has not gone to this aspect of the matter about the authenticity of the consistent statement made by the respondent no.7 but, a finding has been recorded by the Appellate Tribunal that the respondent no.7 was never called for counselling. The finding of the Tribunal is not very much consistent with the stand taken by the respondent no.7. The findings of the Tribunal and the statement of the respondent no.7 can be reconciled in the manner that counselling in a plain register is no counselling at all and it is admitted fact that the respondent no.7 has 59.11% whereas the present petitioner has only 51.80%. 11. In that view of the matter, even though there may be some inconsistency in the order of the Tribunal but, the fact remains that the respondent no.7 is a better candidate in comparison to the present petitioner and the better candidate should be preferred over less meritorious candidates. In such a situation, this Court does not intend to exercise discretionary jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner. 12. This application is, accordingly, dismissed.