Order : D.N. Patel, J. 1. This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order delivered by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No.2529 of 2011 dated 22.09.2016, whereby the petition preferred by this appellant was dismissed and hence, the original petitioner has preferred the present Letters Patent Appeal. 2. FACTUAL MATRIX It is an allegation levelled by the erstwhile State of Bihar and now by State of Jharkhand also that few illegally appointed teachers cannot be continued and, hence, their services were terminated. Those persons whose services were terminated, they were teachers. They challenged this order upto Hon'ble Supreme Court and it had been directed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that fresh advertisement will be issued; the so-called illegally appointed teachers should be given an opportunity to apply and their case for re-appointment should be re-considered. This order was passed in Contempt Case No. 236-46/1991 and 263/1991 in S.L.P. Nos. 11699 and other analogous cases of 1988. The order passed in the Contempt Case is dated 22nd November, 1991 (Annexure-9 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal). In pursuance of the direction given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, there was a re-advertisement by the erstwhile State of Bihar for appointment of the teachers. This appellant was not appointed and, hence, he preferred writ petition being C.W.J.C. No.5679 of 1997. Similarly situated another teacher had also preferred writ petition being C.W.J.C. No.5439 of 1997. The writ petitions preferred by these two teachers were disposed of by the learned Single Judge of this Court vide judgment and order dated 19th January, 2010. It has been observed by this Court as under: - “Further, now it will not be open to the respondents to add any fresh ground other than the grounds mentioned in the impugned order or the grounds mentioned in the counter affidavit. The decision will be taken by the respondents within two months of the date on which certified copy of this order is presented before the respondent No.3 i.e. the Director, Primary Education, Government of Jharkhand who is the counterpart of the authority which had passed the impugned order in the undivided State of Bihar. This writ petitioner is disposed of with the aforesaid direction.” (Emphasis supplied) Upon remand of the matter, fresh decision was taken by the Director, Primary Education, which is annexed at Annexure-20 dated 04.09.2010. This writ petitioner is disposed of with the aforesaid direction.” (Emphasis supplied) Upon remand of the matter, fresh decision was taken by the Director, Primary Education, which is annexed at Annexure-20 dated 04.09.2010. Initially, objection was taken not to appoint this appellant as he had never joined the service after his selection and he was never paid the salary. While deciding C.W.J.C. No.5439 of 1997 & C.W.J.C. No.5679 of 1997 vide order dated 19th January, 2010, one more ground was taken by the Government to the effect that when the re-advertisement was issued, this appellant had never applied for the post of teacher and, therefore, it was observed by the learned Single Judge, as stated herein above, that every time new ground cannot be added. Affidavit cannot supply the reasons to the impugned order as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill Vs. Chief Election Commissioner reported in AIR 1978 SC 851 . Nonetheless, when the decision was taken by the Director Primary Education dated 04.09.2010 (Annexure-20), now third ground is agitated by the State to the effect that list of selected candidates cannot be now operated after lapse of one year. Thus, initially one ground was taken and when the writ was preferred, second ground was added. Thereafter, the matter was remanded and, now, third time third ground is added which has given birth to the instant W.P.(S) No.2529 of 2011, which has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 22nd September,2016 and, hence, the present Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the original petitioner. 3. ARGUMENTS CANVASSED BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT (ORIGINAL PETITIONER) It is submitted by the counsel for the appellant that consistently this appellant has agitated the ground that he has never been illegally appointed and his termination from the service as teacher was wrong and ultimately by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, a direction was given to the erstwhile State of Bihar for re-advertisement of the post, in which this appellant had applied, but, this appellant was not appointed on the ground that initially when he was appointed in the year 1982, he had never joined the services. When a writ petition was preferred by this petitioner being C.W.J.C. No.5679 of 1997 and another similarly situated person had also preferred a writ petition being C.W.J.C. No.5439 of 1997, at that time, one more ground was added by the Government to the effect that these persons had never applied when the re-advertisement was given and it has been observed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 19th January, 2010 while disposing of the writ petition being C.W.J.C. No.5439 of 1997 as well as C.W.J.C. No.5679 of 1997 that both the factual aspects of the matter will be verified by the respondents-State authorities, viz., (a) Whether this appellant has joined his service in the year 1982 or not, because as per Annexure 2 to the Memo of this Letters Patent Appeal to be read with Annexure-1 of the Memo of this Letters Patent Appeal, which was also annexed in the earlier writ petition, the factual aspect was directed to be verified. (b) Whether this petitioner had applied for the post, in question, or not in pursuance of the re-advertisement, because as per page 90 of this Letters Patent Appeal, there is an ostensible evidence which was also annexed in the earlier writ petition and at that time it was never denied in the earlier counter affidavit. These two aspects were directed to be verified and the matter was remanded for taking afresh decision vide order at Annexure 19. It is further submitted by the counsel appearing for the appellant that without verifying the aforesaid two factual aspects for which prima facie evidences were also on record of the writ petition when the Director Primary Education was deciding the case of this appellant, now third ground is being added by him on his own that the panel of selected candidates cannot be operated after period of one year. Every time new officer gives a new ground which cannot be permitted, as submitted by learned counsel for the appellant, otherwise, there will be no end of the litigations and brand new reasons which are being reflected from the fertile mind of the respondents-officers. Every time new officer gives a new ground which cannot be permitted, as submitted by learned counsel for the appellant, otherwise, there will be no end of the litigations and brand new reasons which are being reflected from the fertile mind of the respondents-officers. These aspects of the matter have not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the W.P.(S) No.2529 of 2011 and, hence, the said order dated 22nd September, 2016 deserves to be quashed and set aside and the matter be remanded with strict observation for fresh decision by the Director Primary Education. 4. ARGUMENTS CANVASSED BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENTS-STATE Counsel for the respondents-State submitted that no error has been committed by the Director, Primary Education, in deciding the representation of this petitioner vide order dated 04.09.2010 (Annexure 20). The panel of selected candidates cannot be made operative for infinite time. The panel of selected candidates cannot be used as reservoir for all future vacancies. These aspects of the matter have been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition preferred by this appellant. Hence, this Letters Patent Appeal may not be entertained by this Court. REASONS:- 5. Having heard learned counsels for both sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, we, hereby, quash and set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No.2529 of 2011 dated 22nd September, 2016 mainly for the following facts and reasons:- (i) It is alleged by the respondents that initially when this appellant was appointed as Teacher, it was an illegal appointment and, hence, the services of this appellant along with other similarly situated teachers were brought to an end by the erstwhile State of Bihar. This action was challenged before the Hon'ble Patna High Court and ultimately, the matter reached up Hon'ble the Supreme Court. (ii) As stated herein above, in Contempt Case No.236-46/91 and 263/91 in S.L.P. Nos. 11699 and other analogous cases, of 1988, order dated 22nd November, 2011 (Annexure 9 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal), it was directed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court that let there be a re-advertisement and the cases of similarly situated teachers be considered whose services have been brought to an end. (iii) In pursuance to the aforesaid direction, there was a re-advertisement for the post of teachers. (iii) In pursuance to the aforesaid direction, there was a re-advertisement for the post of teachers. The case of this appellant was not considered and, hence, this appellant as well as similarly situated another person preferred two separate writ petitions being C.W.J.C. No.5439 of 1997 as well as C.W.J.C. No.5679 of 1997 and the order passed therein are annexed as Annexures 19 series to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal. (iv) It has been observed by this Court in the aforesaid two writ petitions vide final order dated 19th January, 2010 that the State Government is changing the ground for rejection of the claim of this appellant. Initially the ground was taken that this appellant had never joined the services in the year 1982, whereas, as per Annexure 2 to be read with Annexure 1, there is a prima facie evidence in favour of this appellant. These two documents were also annexed in the writ petition preferred by this appellant earlier. During the course of hearing, one more ground was added by the Government that this appellant had never applied for the post in question when the re-advertisement was issued. For this ground also at page 90 of this Letters Patent Appeal, prima facie evidence has been given that this appellant had applied when the re-advertisement was issued. This document was also annexed with the earlier writ petition preferred by this appellant. Looking to these factual aspects, the matter was remanded to the State Government for verification of these two facts, viz., (a) whether this appellant had joined the services in the year 1982 keeping in mind the Annexure 1 and Annexure 2 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal and, (b) whether this appellant had applied when the re-advertisement was issued by the erstwhile State of Bihar, looking to page 90 of this memo of Letters Patent Appeal, because, this document was also annexed with the earlier writ petition preferred by this appellant. (v) None of the aforesaid two factual aspects were ever verified by the Director, Primary Education, State Government, as now this Officer has given his third reasoning for rejection of the candidature of this appellant, which was never applied by the erstwhile State of Bihar, nor when the affidavit was filed by the State during the course of argument of C.W.J.C. No.5439 of 1997 and C.W.J.C. No.5679 of 1997. The third ground given by the Director, Primary Education, State of Jharkhand is that the panel of selected candidates now cannot be made operative after lapse of one-year time. This is an order passed by the Director, Primary Education, dated 04.09.2010 (Annexure 20). (vi) Thus, the direction given by this Court to verify the two factual aspects vide order dated 19th January, 2010 in C.W.J.C. No.5679 of 1997 as well in C.W.J.C. No. 5439 of 1997, have not been carried out. Perhaps, it has not been properly appreciated or understood at all, or, perhaps, the said Officer has not taken any care to read the order between the lines or may be the factual aspects are given against the State of Jharkhand, looking to the annexures already annexed with the memo of this writ petition preferred by this appellant, or, there may be permutation or combination of any of any part of aforesaid order. Nonetheless, the fact remains that the third ground is given by the State Government. (vii) It appears that prima facie the ground given by the Director, Primary Education, vide order dated 04.09.2010 (Annexure 20) is not tenable at law, because this appellant is not concerned with the select-list prepared after re-advertisement and, hence, there is no question whatsoever arises for not to make any operation or to make operational the said select-list. Perhaps, the Director, Primary Education, State of Jharkhand, has not understood the case of this appellant. The case of this appellant is that his candidature has never been considered by the erstwhile State of Bihar for one or the other reasons which are not tenable at law. Initially, the State of Bihar had rejected the candidature of this appellant, because of a wrong reason that he never joined the services in the year 1982 and when the writ petitioner preferred writ petition, one more ground was added in the counter affidavit that this appellant had never applied when the re-advertisement was given. If the said Officer, namely Director, Primary Education, State of Jharkhand would have taken any care to look at the writ petition, there were enough annexures showing that there was appointment letter at Annexure 1 annexed with this Letters Patent Appeal and the joining letter as Annexure 2 thereof. If the said Officer, namely Director, Primary Education, State of Jharkhand would have taken any care to look at the writ petition, there were enough annexures showing that there was appointment letter at Annexure 1 annexed with this Letters Patent Appeal and the joining letter as Annexure 2 thereof. Moreover, looking to page 90 of this Letters Patent Appeal, which was also part & parcel of the earlier writ petition, there was a prima facie evidence that this appellant had applied for the post in question when the re-advertisement was given. None of these two grounds has ever been appreciated by the Director, Primary Education. Had an opportunity would have been given to this appellant, like the opportunity which was given to the similarly situated others teachers when the re-advertisement was given in pursuance of a direction by Hon'ble the Supreme Court (order at Annexure 9), perhaps, this appellant would have been selected much earlier. (viii) Director, Primary Education, has stated that the list of selected candidates comes to an end, but, it ought to be appreciated that the candidature of this appellant was never considered and, hence, there is no question of selection of this appellant whatsoever arises. This appellant is in search of consideration of his candidature, whereas, the Director, Primary Education, is in search of operation of the select list. Both are different points. Appellant's case ought to have been considered by the Director, Primary Education, in the light of the order passed in C.W.J.C. No. No.5439 of 1997 and C.W.J.C. No. 5679 of 1997 order dated 19th January, 2010. Third ground could not have been added by the Director, Primary Education. This appellant has not come to the Court to make the select list operational. This appellant has come to the Court to get an equal opportunity for the public post, which has been given to similarly situated other teachers whose earlier appointment was wrongly cancelled by the erstwhile State of Bihar. The aforesaid aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition preferred by this appellant. 6. The aforesaid aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition preferred by this appellant. 6. Hence, as a cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts and reasons, we, hereby, quash and set aside the order passed by learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No.2529 of 2011 dated 22nd September, 2016 as well as, we, hereby quash and set aside the order passed by the Director, Primary Education, State of Jharkhand dated 4th September, 2010 (Annexure 20 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal) and, we, hereby, direct the Director, State of Jharkhand to decide afresh the two grounds as stated in the order dated 19th January, 2010 in C.W.J.C. No.5439 of 1997 as well as in C.W.J.C. No. 5679 of 1997 (Annexure 19 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal). This decision will be taken by the Director, Primary Education, Government of Jharkhand, within four weeks from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order.