JUDGMENT : Anjana Mishra, J. Heard Ms. Surya Nilambari, learned counsel for the appellant, Shri P.K. Jaipuriyar, learned counsel for respondent No.11 and Shri Ashutosh Ranjan Pandey, learned A.A.G.-15 for the State of Bihar and perused the pleadings as well as the written submissions filed by the parties. 2. The present Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the appellant-Gunjan Kumari challenging the judgment and order dated 19.04.2018 passed in C.W.J.C. No.8187 of 2017 (Renu Kumari vs. The State of Bihar & others), wherein the appellant was arrayed as respondent No.11. The appellant had contested a series of litigations and finally succeeded in getting appointed as a Block Panchayat Teacher in the district of Katihar. Since her appointment was upset by the impugned judgment, the appellant seeks to prefer the present appeal. 3. It is important to mention here that the writ petitioner (Respondent No.11) had filed CWJC No.8187 of 2017 seeking to quash an order dated 25.05.2017 passed by the State Appellate Authority in Appeal Case No.3 of 2016 as well as the orders dated 15.07.2016 and 30.12.2015 passed by the District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority (hereinafter referred to as `the District Appellate Authority’) in Appeal Case No.3 of 2016 and Appeal Case No.34 of 2014 (Annexures 1, 2 and 3 respectively) and for allowing the writ petitioner, namely, Renu Kumari (Respondent No.11) to continue on the post of Block Teacher at Middle School, Tikkapatti, Samaili in the district of Katihar. In the said writ application, Renu Kumari has impleaded Kumari Anita as respondent No.10 and the appellant Gunjan Kumari as respondent No.11. 4. Since the present case has a long history of litigation, it would be appropriate to present the factual matrix of the series of events which ultimately culminated in the present litigation. (i) Pursuant to an advertisement published in the year 2006 for appointment of Panchayat Teachers as per the provisions of Bihar Panchayat Teachers (Employment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2006, including two posts reserved for Extremely Backward (Female) in the Gram Panchayat, Chandpur West, Block-Samaili, District-Katihar, the appellant-Gunjan Kumari (respondent No.11 in the writ petition), Kumari Anita (respondent No.10) and Renu Kumari (writ petitioner/respondent No.11 in the L.P.A.) applied for the said posts under the EBC (Female) Category-Untrained. (ii) A merit list of EBC (F) Untrained was prepared, according to which, the appellant Gunjan Kumari was placed at Serial No.8 with 60.66% , that of Kumari Anita (Respondent No.10) was placed at Serial No.13 with 59% and Renu Kumari (writ petitioner/respondent No.11 in L.P.A.) was placed at Serial No.16 with 56.66%. Thus, the relative merit came to be noticed in Annexure D and is fully admitted by all the parties. (iii) Despite being on the top of the merit list amongst EBC(F) Untrained candidates, the appellant was not appointed on 5th 6th the ground that she had not participated in the and counselling held on 11.3.2007/12.03.2007 and 16.03.2007/17.03.2007. However, Kumari Anita (respondent No.10) and Renu Kumari (writ petitioner/respondent No.11 in LPA) were appointed and appointment letters were issued on 24.03.2007 to Kumari Anita and Renu Kumari on the basis of the th counselling held on 21.03.2007. (iv) The appellant herein Gunjan Kumari being aggrieved by her non-selection filed Misc. Appeal No.04 of 2007 before the B.D.O., Sameili, who passed an order dated 06.09.2007 recording that the appointments made through the 7th and 8th panels were illegal because no appointments were made from the 5th and th panels. Thus, pursuant to the aforementioned order, the Panchayat Secretary, vide order dated 02.02.2008, cancelled the appointment of Kumari Anita (respondent No.10). (v) The appellant Gunjan Kumari preferred Appeal Case No.1284 of 2009 before the District Appellant Authority, who passed an interim order in Appeal Case No.1284 of 2009 recording that the present appellant Gunjan Kumari had not participated in the counselling and could not lay any claim to appointment. This interim order was challenged in CWJC No.10194 of 2010. However, Appeal No.1284 of 2009 was not pursued by the appellant-Gunjan Kumari as, in the meanwhile, Kumari Anita preferred Appeal No.1529 of 2009 against the order dated 02.02.2008, by which pursuant to the order dated 06.09.2007 passed by the B.D.O., the Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Chandpur had cancelled her appointment. (vi) On 25.07.2009, the District Appellate Authority, Katihar allowed the appeal filed by Kumari Anita and directed the Panchayat Secretary to ensure that Kumari Anita be reinstated as Panchayat Teacher. (vi) On 25.07.2009, the District Appellate Authority, Katihar allowed the appeal filed by Kumari Anita and directed the Panchayat Secretary to ensure that Kumari Anita be reinstated as Panchayat Teacher. (vii) It is also relevant to mention that the appellant Gunjan Kumari had also filed CWJC No.1683 of 2008 with I.A. No.6232 of 2009 and challenging the order dated 25.07.2009, which was disposed of on 12.04.2010 in the following terms : “Petitioner has the liberty to challenge the orders passed by the appellate forums in two appeals, by filing separate writ applications”. Thus, the appellant filed CWJC No.10194 of 2010 and CWJC No.10036 of 2010, impleading Kumari Anita as respondent No.9, against the interim order dated 12.08.2009 in Appeal Case No.1284 of 2009 and the order dated 25.07.2009 in Appeal Case No.1529 of 2009 filed by Kumari Anita. (viii) By order dated 21.08.2014, both the writ applications were disposed of by a common order passed by this Court, whereby the previous order was quashed as being contrary to the principles of natural justice and liberty was granted to Gunajan Kumari as well as Kumari Anita to approach the District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority to raise their grievances. (ix) It is pertinent to mention here that Renu Kumari-the writ petitioner had not been made a party in any of the proceedings, referred to herein above. (x) In view of the liberty granted by this Court, the present appellant-Gunjan Kumari preferred Appeal Case No.34 of 2014 before the District Appellate Authority, Katihar, challenging the appointment of Kumari Anita alone, who was respondent No.4 in Appeal Case No.34 of 2014. (xi) The said appeal case, bearing Appeal Case No.34 of 2014, after considering the materials on record, was allowed by the District Appellate Authority, Katihar, with a direction to the appointing authority to appoint Gunjan Kumari after cancelling the appointment of Kumari Anita. Simultaneously, liberty was also granted to Kumari Anita to challenge the appointment of any other person who was placed below her in the rank in the merit list. It was at this stage that Kumari Anita having been displaced for the first time and being higher in the merit list to Renu Kumari, challenged the appointment of Renu Kumari-writ petitioner vide Appeal Case No.3 of 2016. It was at this stage that Kumari Anita having been displaced for the first time and being higher in the merit list to Renu Kumari, challenged the appointment of Renu Kumari-writ petitioner vide Appeal Case No.3 of 2016. (xii) The District Appellate Authority, Katihar, vide its order dated 15.07.2016, allowed the appeal filed by Kumari Anita and directed that the appointment of Renu Kumari be cancelled and that Kumari Anita (respondent No.10) be appointed against the second of the two posts reserved for E.B.C.(F). (xiii) Against both the orders dated 30.12.2015 and 15.07.2016, Renu Kumari, who stood 3rd in the comparative merit list of the three contesting parties, preferred Appeal Case No.3 of 2016 before the State Appellate Authority, Bihar. Gunjan Kumari was appointed as Panchayat Teacher vide office order issued by the Panchayat Secretary, West Chandpur Sameili, Katihar on 05.02.2016. (xiv) It is needful to mention here that during the pendency of Appeal Case No.3 of 2016 before the State Appellate Authority, a team of two officials was constituted by the D.M., Katihar under the direction of the State Appellate Authority to enquire into the rival claims of the parties, who submitted their report that there was no clear evidence of pasting of the 5th provisional panel in the Panchayat and Block Offices and since the same had not been established, thereby no effective notice of the th counselling could be said to have been provided, which explains as to why Gunjan Kumari or any other candidate could not participate in the 5th counselling. It was also reported in the said enquiry, in the context of the appointment of Renu Kumari (writ petitioner), that while the Appointment Committee had held its meeting on 26.03.2007, wherein it was decided to appoint the candidates who were present for counselling on 21.03.2007, the appointment letter was issued in favour of Renu Kumari on 24.03.2007 itself, i.e. two days prior to the meeting of the Appointment Committee, which itself vitiates her selection. (xv) It was on the basis of the aforementioned report dated 29.07.2015 that the State Appellate Authority after perusing the materials on record affirmed the orders dated 15.07.2016 and 30.12.2015 passed by the District Appellate Authority, Katihar dismissing the appeal filed by the writ petitioner-Renu Kumari. (xv) It was on the basis of the aforementioned report dated 29.07.2015 that the State Appellate Authority after perusing the materials on record affirmed the orders dated 15.07.2016 and 30.12.2015 passed by the District Appellate Authority, Katihar dismissing the appeal filed by the writ petitioner-Renu Kumari. It was further directed that the appointment of Renu Kumari should be cancelled and Gunjan Kumari should be adjusted against the two posts available under E.B.C.(F). The State Appellate Authority also rejected as the contentions raised by the appellant with regard to the contentions of res judicate, review, delay and non-participation of Gunjan Kumari in the 5th counselling. (xvi) The said Renu Kumari (respondent No.11 in LPA ) came to file CWJC No.8187 of 2017 before this Court in which she placed a challenge to the following orders: (a) Order dated 25.05.2017 passed by the State Appellate Authority in Appeal Case No.3/2016 (b) Order dated 15.07.2016 passed by the District Appellate Authority, Katihar in Appeal Case No.3/2016 (c) Order dated 30.12.2015 passed in Appeal Case No.34 /2014 by the District Appellate Authority, Katihar (xvii) During the pendency of the writ application Gunjan Kumari (appellant herein) was removed from the post of Panchayat Teacher vide letter issued in pursuance of the interim order dated 10.07.2017 in CWJC No.8187 of 2017 and Kumari Anita was, vide order dated 19.07.2017, directed to join the post after cancellation of the appointment of Gunjan Kumari. Further, vide judgment and order dated 19.04.2018, the writ application (CWJC No.8187 of 2017) was allowed and the three orders impugned therein were quashed. The order passed in the writ application further observed that Renu Kumari, who was continuing as a Panchayat Teacher in terms of the interim order dated 10.07.2017 would continue as such and the said order dated 10.07.2017 was made absolute. The order passed in the writ application further observed that Renu Kumari, who was continuing as a Panchayat Teacher in terms of the interim order dated 10.07.2017 would continue as such and the said order dated 10.07.2017 was made absolute. (xviii) Aggrieved by the aforementioned order unsettling the appointment of Gunjan Kumari, the appellant Gunjan Kumari has come to this Court in the present intra-Court appeal, stating that the learned single Judge has failed to consider the case of the appellant in its true perspective and has wrongly observed that the appointment of Renu Kumari (writ petitioner/respondent No.11 in LPA), who was continuing as a Panchayat Teacher in terms of the interim order dated 10.07.2017 passed by the High Court in CWJC No.8187 of 2017, who still continues, as the appellant had not participated in the 5th counselling and thus debarred her from being appointed, despite having higher position in the merit list. 5. Placing her submissions for setting aside the order of the learned single Judge, learned counsel for the appellant Ms. Surya Nilambari has submitted that the order of the learned single Judge can be faulted on the following grounds : (a) The petitioner-respondent No.11 had wrongly contended before the learned District Appellate Authority as well as in the writ application that the appellant Gunjan Kumari has not been able to produce any material or evidence to support her case that she had participated in the counselling. In fact, it was never her case that she had participated in the counselling. She had merely asserted that she had participated in the verification of the documents on 19.10.2006 where her name had figured at the top of the list of other candidates and therefore the contention of the writ petitioner that the appellant had submitted that she had participated in the first counselling appears to be not entirely correct. Thus, the contention of the writ petitioner that the verification register of 19.10.2006 could not be confused with the counselling register which was done for the first time in between 07.01.2007 and 09.02.2007 after final preparation of the merit list is also misconceived. Thus, the contention of the writ petitioner that the verification register of 19.10.2006 could not be confused with the counselling register which was done for the first time in between 07.01.2007 and 09.02.2007 after final preparation of the merit list is also misconceived. In fact, the appellant’s case had been rejected by the District Appellate Authoirty in Case No.1284 of 2009 was because the authority had come to the conclusion that Gunjan Kumari had not produced any material or evidence to support her case that she participated in the fifth and sixth counselling. (b) Learned counsel for the appellant further contended that the learned single Judge has entirely confused and digressed from the main issue that the appellant after verification and preparation of the merit list was enjoined to be called for a counselling and therefore the plea that she had not appeared in the th counseling without there being any conclusive proof of notice of the same to her is wholly arbitrary and unreasonable. (c) Learned counsel further contended that the Hon’ble single Judge has failed to appreciate Rule 9(xi) of 2006 Rules which related to the appointment of the appellant and others as there is no specific verification of counselling process and none of the respondents have failed to bring on record the notice of the preparation of the final merit list, after which alone the candidates were sent their joining letter under the provisions of Rule 9(xi) of 2006 Rules. Thus, the specific assertion of the petitioner and the lone ground on which she sought to contest and assail the order of the learned single Judge, appears to be that the contention of the respondents that she did not participate in the 5th counselling is erroneous and unsustainable, as no effective date had been fixed for the 5th counselling and there is absolutely no material on record to indicate that notice of such counselling had ever been communicated to her. Thus, there being a report of the 2-Man Committee that no such evidence of notice of counselling is available on record, the benefit therefrom should accrue in favour of her appointment in pursuance of the decision in Appeal Case No.3 of 2016 passed by the State Appellate Authority. Thus, there being a report of the 2-Man Committee that no such evidence of notice of counselling is available on record, the benefit therefrom should accrue in favour of her appointment in pursuance of the decision in Appeal Case No.3 of 2016 passed by the State Appellate Authority. (d) So far as the contention that the writ petitioner was not made a party is concerned, she submitted that Renu Kumari being the third in the merit list was neither a proper or necessary party and her main grievance was against the appointment of Kumari Anita who was just below her in rank. (e) It was thus submitted that the order of the learned single Judge may be set aside and the appellant be continued to function on the post. 6. Per contra, the writ petitioner-Renu Kumari has canvassed and reiterated her case as submitted before the learned single Judge and submitted that pursuant to the advertisement, she along with respondent No.11 and Kumari Anita (respondent No.10) were applicants and after preparation of the merit list came to be called for verification of documents between 17.10.2006 and 20.10.2006. Based on the same, a merit list was prepared and thereafter counselling commenced from 08.01.2007. 7. It is not in dispute that when the merit list was prepared, respondent No.11 Gunjan Kumari (appellant) was placed at 1st position (60.66%) whereas respondent No.10 Kumari Anita came to be placed at 2nd position (59%) and that the writ petitioner at 3rd position with only 56.66% amongst EBC(F) category. However, only two posts were vacant under EBC(F) category. 8. Thus, the admitted position remains that Gunjan Kumari (the appellant) was placed at Serial No.8 with 60.66% whereas Kumari Anita was placed at 13 with 59% and the answering respondent Renu Kumari (writ petitioner) at Serial No.16 with 56.66%. It is also undisputed, as per Annexure 7 to the writ application, which is a joint enquiry committee report (Page 93) that the date of verification of academic certificates of all applicants was 17.10.2006 to 21.10.2006. However, the appellant-Gunjan Kumari construed the date of verification of academic certificates 19.10.2006 to be the date of first counselling, which is wholly erroneous and her entire case is based on the same, though 17.10.2006 to 20.10.2006 was only the date fixed for verification of documents, based on which the merit list was prepared and thereafter the counselling began from 08.01.2007. It was further submitted by the respondent-writ petitioner that after the verification was concluded in which 490 candidates were verified and a merit list as per roster from the 1st panel to the 8th panel was prepared and they were called for counselling in eight phases in which the 1st counselling was fixed on 08.01.2007, 2nd counselling on 27/28.2.2007, 3rd counselling on 5/6.03.2007, 4th counselling on 08.03.2007, 5th counselling on 11/12.03.2007, 6th counselling on 6th 16/17.03.2007 and 7th counselling on 21.03.2007 and counselling on 31.03.2007 for final appearance and consent. This aspect of the matter finds support in the Joint Committee Report dated 29.04.2017 (Annexure 7). Thus, the aforementioned dates having been specifically fixed for counselling, when the appellant Gunjan Kumari had failed to appear on three consecutive dates i.e. 11/12.03.2007, 16/17.03.2007 and 21.03.2007, the writ petitioner as also one Kumari Anita came to be granted the appointment letters. 9. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner further submitted that from the entries made in the counselling register of 11.03.2007 and 12.03.2007, it is evident that none of the candidates appeared for counselling on the said date. Thus, at the th counselling Kumari Anita (respondent No.10) and Renu Kumari (respondent no.11) both appeared and presented themselves, which is evident from the counselling register (Page 99 of the writ petition) and letters were issued to them on 24.03.2007. Both the candidates joined their respective schools and finally the school of Renu Kumari was upgraded to a Middle School and she was promoted as Prakhand (Block) Teacher since 2012. 10. The appellant herein preferred Misc. Case No.4 of 2007 wherein the B.D.O., Sameli, vide his order dated 06.09.2007 quashed the 7th and 8th counselling panel, but this order was passed without hearing Renu Kumari (respondent no.11) as she was not made a party to the said proceeding and on 07.09.2007, the Panchayat Secretary issued Letter No.949 cancelling the appointment of Kumari Anita and Renu Kumari. 11. This necessitated both Renu Kumari as well as Kumari Anita to prefer two writ applications, being CWJC No.15481 of 2007 and CWJC No.15321 of 2007. In CWJC No.15481 of 2007 filed by Renu Kumari, the appellant herein and respondent no.10-Anita Kumari were not made parties and in the case filed by Kumari Anita (CWJC No.15321 of 2007), the appellant and respondent No.11 Renu Kumari were not made parties. The appellant herein also preferrred CWJC No.1683 of 2008. In CWJC No.15481 of 2007 filed by Renu Kumari, the appellant herein and respondent no.10-Anita Kumari were not made parties and in the case filed by Kumari Anita (CWJC No.15321 of 2007), the appellant and respondent No.11 Renu Kumari were not made parties. The appellant herein also preferrred CWJC No.1683 of 2008. The appellant had also preferred Appeal Case No.1284 of 2009 as the then Panchayat Secretary had failed to comply with the order passed by the B.D.O., Sameli dated 06.09.2007, but in the said case since an interim order dated 12.08.2009 is arrived at that the appellant had not appeared in any of the counselling, further proceedings of the appeal were stayed till further hearing. 12. The said order, however, came to be challenged in the pending writ petition before this Court in I.A. No.6232 of 2009 filed in CWJC No.1683 of 2008, wherein a prayer was made to amend the prayer and challenge the order dated 12.08.2009 passed in Appeal Case No.1284 of 2009. However, ultimately, CWJC No.1683 of 2008 filed by the appellant/writ petitioner came to be dismissed vide order dated 12.04.2010, with liberty to the petitioner to challenge both the orders passed by the Appellate Forums in two appeals (order dated 25.07.2009 and order dated 12.08.2009 passed in Appeal Case No.1529 of 2009 and order dated 12.08.2009 passed in Appeal Case No.1284 of 2009). Thus, both these orders came to be challenged separately in CWJC No.10194 of 2010 and CWJC No.10036 of 2010. Both these applications were heard together and disposed of on 21.08.2014 with liberty to approach the District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority, which would consider the respective grievances after giving due notice to the parties and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. In the said order disposing of the application, this Court has quashed the order dated 25.07.2009 and also the order passed by the Block Development Officer dated 06.09.2007. It has further been noted in that order that “any order passed prior to the present order by any authority shall not prejudice the case of the parties in any manner”. It was urged by the respondent that the petitioner (appellant) in these writs did not implead her as a party. 13. It has further been noted in that order that “any order passed prior to the present order by any authority shall not prejudice the case of the parties in any manner”. It was urged by the respondent that the petitioner (appellant) in these writs did not implead her as a party. 13. One of the main contentions raised by the writ petitioner in the writ application that the appellant Gunjan Kumari had not participated in the counselling stands disproved by her own contention in her interlocutory application (I.A. No.4245 of 2017 in CWJC No.8187 of 2017)), wherein at paragraph 8 of the said I.A., she has categorically stated as follows: “8. That as per the Govt. Circular & Rules with regard to selection/appointment for Panchayat Teacher for year 2006, it has been categorically stated vide Letter No.7/Ni-3-02/06-1114 dated 24.07.2006; that for preparing Panel List 15 days time after General Public Notice is to be given & for any objection to the Panel List, another 07 days time only to be given, to any aggrieved candidates/persons.” 14. Thus, if the rule so provided, a procedure for preparation of panel and grant of 15 days’ time after general public notice and for inviting any objection to the panel list, another seven days’ time, the appellant too should have been afforded with an opportunity for raising her objections. Furthermore, there is nothing on the record to reveal as to when said panel list was finalised and also when such general public notice was given and in what manner any objection was called for to the panel list from any of the candidates aggrieved or otherwise. 15. Another issued as raised by the respondent Renu Kumari/writ petitioner is that since the order passed in Appeal Case No.1284 of 2009, vide order dated 12.08.2009, has not been disturbed till date, in which an observation had been given that Gunjan Kumari did not appear in the counselling and which remains in force till date. Their contention that the appellant Gunjan Kumari has no case for her consideration at this belated stage is also unacceptable, wherein it had been stated that any order passed by any authority shall not prejudice any of the parties, the order dated 12.08.2009 cannot be saddled on her shoulders as well. 16. Their contention that the appellant Gunjan Kumari has no case for her consideration at this belated stage is also unacceptable, wherein it had been stated that any order passed by any authority shall not prejudice any of the parties, the order dated 12.08.2009 cannot be saddled on her shoulders as well. 16. In this context, we have perused several orders passed by this Court and the learned single Judge, while disposing of CWJC No.10194 of 2010 (Gunjan Kumari Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.) as also CWJC No.10036 of 2010 (Gunjan Kumari Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.), vide order dated 21.08.2014, quashed the order passed by the Block Development Officer dated 06.09.2007 as well as the order passed by the District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority, Katihar dated 25.07.2009 with liberty to the petitioner as well as respondent no.9 to approach the District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority, raising their respective grievances. The operative portion of the aforesaid order is quoted here under: “The manner in which the proceedings have been conducted before the Block Development Officer or the District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority cannot be approved. Both the authorities proceeded with the matter and passed orders dated 06.09.2007 and 25.07.2009 without giving any opportunity to persons who were going to be adversely affected by such orders. Both the orders have been passed in violation of principles of natural justice since in the first case, respondent No.9 was not given any opportunity of being heard, whereas in second case petitioner was not noticed. The order passed by the Block Development Officer dated 06.09.2007 as well as the order passed by the District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority, Katihar dated 25.07.2009 are quashed. The petitioner as well as respondent No.9 shall have liberty to approach the District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority raising their respective grievance and the Authority will, thereafter, after giving due notice to the parties, shall proceed and pass order in accordance with law. Any order passed prior to the present order by any authority shall not prejudice the case of the parties in any manner. The writ applications are, accordingly, disposed of.” (Underlining is mine) 17. Any order passed prior to the present order by any authority shall not prejudice the case of the parties in any manner. The writ applications are, accordingly, disposed of.” (Underlining is mine) 17. Thus, we are of the considered opinion that such a submission as advanced by the respondent-Renu Kumari cannot be sustained and accepted to the prejudice of the present appellant as the learned single Judge had clearly stated that any order passed prior to the present order by any authority shall not prejudice the case of the parties in any manner.We have also perused the record of the entire writ application which came before this Court in the present connection and we find that there is no discernible evidence available on the record to answer that proper and adequate notice was issued to the appellant for appearing at the counselling and therefore the admitted position being that she was the candidate with the highest percentage marks her candidature cannot be bypassed on account of her absence during the 5th and 6th counselling and the action of the respondents in appointing a less meritorious candidate than the appellant, in our considered opinion, cannot be sustained. 18. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has contended that the learned single Judge has allowed the case of the writ petitioner on the ground that vide order dated 15.07.2016, the District Appellate Authority had allowed the appeal of Kumari Anita and cancelled the employment of the writ petitioner and directed reinstatement of Kumari Anita. Against the said order dated 15.07.2016 of the District Appellate Authority, the writ petitioner filed Appeal Case No.3 of 2016, but the State Appellate Authority also perpetuated the same illegality and dismissed the appeal of the writ petitioner, vide order dated 25.05.2017. This aspect of the matter was duly considered by us and the only consideration that can be given to the writ petitioner who has come to oppose the present appeal is as to whether in the litigation being contested by the appellant, the writ petitioner-Renu Kumari who stood at Serial No.3 was a necessary and proper party. This aspect of the matter was duly considered by us and the only consideration that can be given to the writ petitioner who has come to oppose the present appeal is as to whether in the litigation being contested by the appellant, the writ petitioner-Renu Kumari who stood at Serial No.3 was a necessary and proper party. Learned counsel for the appellant has consistently averred that since her contest was mainly against Kumari Anita, who was nearest to the appellant in merit, the writ petitioner was not a necessary party as she stood third in the merit list and she was the only one who was above Kumari Anita, who has been so selected in the 6th and 7th counselling. In this context, learned counsel for the appellant has referred to paragraph 7 of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Udit Narain Singh Malpaharia vs. Additional Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar and Anr., reported in AIR 1963 S.C. 786 . Para 7 of the said judgment runs thus : “7. To answer the question raised, it would be convenient at the outset to ascertain who are necessary or proper parties in a proceeding. The law on the subject is well setttled: it is enough if we state the principle. A necessary party is one without whom no order can be made effectively; a proper party is one in whose absence an effective order can be made but whose presence is necessary for a complete and final decision on the question involved in the proceeding.” 19. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the writ petitioner was neither a necessary nor a proper party and she need not have been heard as the main grievance of the appellant was against the selection of respondent Kumari Anita and the writ petitioner was but a third party to the lis. In this context, she has referred to paragraphs 48, 49 and 53 of the judgment in the case of Poonam v. State of U.P., reported in (2016) 2 SCC 779 , which are quoted hereunder : “48. A few examples can be given so that the position can be easily appreciated. In this context, she has referred to paragraphs 48, 49 and 53 of the judgment in the case of Poonam v. State of U.P., reported in (2016) 2 SCC 779 , which are quoted hereunder : “48. A few examples can be given so that the position can be easily appreciated. There are provisions in some legislations pertaining to Gram Panchayat or Panchayat Samiti where on certain grounds the competent authority has been conferred the power to remove the elected Sarpanch or the Chairman, as the case may be on certain counts. Against the order of the Collector, an appeal lies and eventually either a revision or a writ lies to the High Court. After his removal, someone by way of indirect election from amongst the members of the Panchayats or the Panchayat Samiti is elected as the Sarpanch or the Chairman. The removed Sarpanch assails his order of removal as he is aggrieved by the manner, method and the reasons for removal. In his eventual success, he has to hold the post of the Sarpanch, if the tenure is there. The question, thus, arises whether the person who has been elected in the meantime from amongst the members of the Panchayat Samiti or Sabha is a necessary party. The answer has to be a categorical “No”, for he cannot oppose the order of removal assailed by the affected Sarpanch nor can he defend his election because he has come into being because of a vacancy, arising due to different situation. 49. In the instant case, Shop No. 2 had become vacant. The appellant was allotted the shop, may be in the handicapped quota but such allotment is the resultant factor of the said shop falling vacant. The original allottee, that is, the respondent, assailed his cancellation and ultimately succeeded in appeal. We are not concerned with the fact that the appellant herein was allowed to put her stand in the appeal. She was neither a necessary nor a proper party. The appellate authority permitted her to participate but that neither changes the situation nor does it confer any legal status on her. She would have continued to hold the shop had the original allottee lost the appeal. She cannot assail the said order in a writ petition because she is not a necessary party. It is the State or its functionaries who could have challenged the same in appeal. She would have continued to hold the shop had the original allottee lost the appeal. She cannot assail the said order in a writ petition because she is not a necessary party. It is the State or its functionaries who could have challenged the same in appeal. They have maintained sphinx like silence in that regard. Be that as it may, that would not confer any locus on the subsequent allottee to challenge the order passed in favour of the former allottee. She is a third party to the lis in this context. 53. We have referred to the said decision in Ramesh Hirachand case [Ramesh Hirachand Kundanmal v. Municipal Corpn. of Greater Bombay, (1992) 2 SCC 524 ] in extenso as there is emphasis on curtailment of legal right. The question to be posed is whether there is curtailment or extinction of a legal right of the appellant. The writ petitioner before the High Court was trying to establish her right in an independent manner, that is, she has an independent legal right. It is extremely difficult to hold that she has an independent legal right. It was the first allottee who could have continued in law, if his licence would not have been cancelled. He was entitled in law to prosecute his cause of action and restore his legal right. Restoration of the legal right is pivotal and the prime mover. The eclipse being over, he has to come back to the same position. His right gets revived and that revival of the right cannot be dented by the third party.” 20. We have further observed that the writ petitioner and also Kumari Anita were both alive to their cause, as both the parties had raised their objections and challenged the order dated 06.09.2007 in CWJC No.15481 of 2007 filed by Renu Kumari in which she did not make the appellant or respondent No.10 a party. Similarly, Kumari Anita also challenged the order in CWJC No.15321 of 2007 in which she too did not make the appellant or respondent no.11 Renu Kumari a party. Both these writ applications remained pending in view of the pendency of L.P.A. No.45 of 2007, which was filed against a similar writ petition. Thus, two writ applications came to be disposed of on 22.07.2011 along with other analogous cases (Sangita Kumari Vs. State of Bihar, CWJC No.14660 of 2007). Both these writ applications remained pending in view of the pendency of L.P.A. No.45 of 2007, which was filed against a similar writ petition. Thus, two writ applications came to be disposed of on 22.07.2011 along with other analogous cases (Sangita Kumari Vs. State of Bihar, CWJC No.14660 of 2007). The text of the order dated 22.07.2011 is extracted here under: “22.07.2011 All these cases relate to the engagement of the petitioners as a Shiksha Mitra and/or appointment on the post of Panchayat Shikshak. It has been claimed by most of the petitioners that had they been engaged and continued in service as a Shiksha Mitra, they could have got the benefit of absorption on the post of Panchayat Shikshak in terms of Rule 20(iii) of 2006 Rules. In some of the cases the grievance relate directly to selection and appointment on the post of Panchayat Shikshak. The aforesaid 2006 Rule however itself provides a statutory alternative remedy in Rule-18 thereof, wherein, an independent body namely the District Teachers Appellate Authority has been constituted to look into any of the grievances relating to employment on the post of Panchayat Shikshak which in its wide sweep would also include the absorption of Shiksha Mitra on the post of Panchayat Shikshak. For some period of time there was some sort of confusion as with regard to jurisdiction for entertaining the dispute relating to engagement/continuation on the post of Shiksha Mitra, in view of the provisions made in Rule-18 regarding complaint in relating to employment and service condition of Panchayat teachers only but then the State Government has also clarified the same by its circular dated 14.05.2009 in terms of Rule 19 of 2006 Rules that even the dispute relating to the post of Shiksha Mitra could be adjudicated by the District Teachers Appellate Authoity. The tribunal in form of the District Teachers Appellate Authority is therefore fully competent to entertain a complaint as with regard to selection and appointment on the post of Shikshamitra or Panchayat Shikshak and it has full powers to find out the facts and decide the issues in the light of the relevant Rules and/or Circular. The tribunal in form of the District Teachers Appellate Authority is therefore fully competent to entertain a complaint as with regard to selection and appointment on the post of Shikshamitra or Panchayat Shikshak and it has full powers to find out the facts and decide the issues in the light of the relevant Rules and/or Circular. Therefore, these writ applications are disposed of with a liberty to the petitioners of these cases to approach the concerned District Teachers Appellate Authority within a period of eight weeks from today and if such an application by way of complaint is filed individually by them before the concerned Authority, it will proceed to examine the claim of the concerned petitioner on merit and would not non suit any one of them on the ground of limitation. It is however made clear, that in case, the petitioners would also asail the engagement/continuation of any other persons on the post of Shiksha Mitra who have been later on absorbed as Panchayat Shikshak, not only the Authority will have to issue notices to such persons but will have to also afford opportunity of hearing to them before passing the final order on such complaint/representation filed by the petitioners before the Authority. The Authority keeping in view that the dispute has lingered for a long time and that the Authority was constituted during the pendency of these writ applications filed in the year 2007 must ensure that a final decision in accordance with law is taken within a period of six months from the date of filing of the complaint/representation of the concerned petitioners. With the aforementioned observations and direction, these applications are disposed of.” 21. It appears from the reading of this order that the said order deals with the 2006 Rules and the statutory alternative remedy available in Rule 18, wherein an independent body-District Appellate Authority has been constituted to look into the grievances relating to the employment on the post of Panchayat Shikshak. This order, however, has not been referred to by any of the contesting respondents in their respective pleadings and only came to the fore in the written submissions filed by respondent No.11. This order, however, has not been referred to by any of the contesting respondents in their respective pleadings and only came to the fore in the written submissions filed by respondent No.11. It also appears from her written submissions that she had been engaged in a parallel proceedings challenging her order of termination dated 07.02.2008 wherein she filed Appeal Case No.1131 of 2009 before the District Appellate Authority who allowed her appeal and as a consequence thereof, she rejoined on the post. Similarly, Kumari Anita had also filed Appeal Case No.1529 of 2009 before the District Appellate Authority wherein her appeal was also allowed vide order dated 25.07.2009. This fact has been cleverly withheld by the respondents only with an oblique motive making out a case of violation of the principles of natural justice and though she was well aware that the present appellant was contesting the matter, she preferred to be silent on the issue as she had already got her appointment restored in the appeal preferred before the District Appellate Authority. This action of the writ petitioner places a cloud on her candidature, though it is an admitted position that she was not impleaded in the writ or appeal preferred by the present appellant. Thus, in our opinion, her case for violation of the principles of natural justice is not sustainable in view of her own conduct before this Court. 22. The next issue raised by the appellant is that she was not afforded the necessary notice for appearance at the counselling and her deprivation from being appointed can be considered only in the light of the Government Circulars and the Rules. 23. It appears from the Government Circulars and the Rules with regard to the selection/appointment for Panchayat Teacher for the year 2006, wherein it has been categorically stated that vide Letter No.7/Ni.-3-02/06-1114 dated 24.07.2006 for preparing the panel list, 15 days’ time after the general public notice is to be given and for any objection to the panel list, another seven days’ time is to be given to any aggrieved person. It is not clear from the records that any such notice was ever given or the manner in which the final merit panel was published. 24. We have also made a perusal of Annexure 8 series of the writ application which clearly indicates that in the counselling not a single candidate had appeared for counselling. It is not clear from the records that any such notice was ever given or the manner in which the final merit panel was published. 24. We have also made a perusal of Annexure 8 series of the writ application which clearly indicates that in the counselling not a single candidate had appeared for counselling. It is, however, not clear as to when the date of counselling was fixed and how it was communicated to the concerned candidates. Only one thing is clear that verification of document was held between 07.10.2006 and 20.10.2006, after which the merit list was prepared, though the dates for counselling have been said to have been fixed from 08.01.2007 onwards. Even so, to us, how and when the same was communicated to the candidates is not evident. In this context, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that it is general ground that the candidates had not appeared in the fifth and sixth counselling and on that specious plea, many of the meritorious candidates were deprived of their opportunity of appointment and persons with lesser marks were granted the benefits of appointment. In this context, an order dated 16.03.2012 of the learned single Judge has been placed as Annexure R/11/12 in the writ application, wherein a Bench of this Court disposed of CWJC No.4517 of 2011 on 16.03.2012 in the following words : “Consistent case of the petitioner all along has been that he was an applicant for the post of Panchayat Teacher. Counselling was done and he had every eligibility to be appointed on the post as such as he had 67.11% marks but on the spacious plea that he did not turn up on the date of issuance of appointment letter, person with lesser marks, namely, respondent no.8 Md. Imran with 63% marks was appointed by the said Panchayat. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there was deliberate mischief on the part of Panchayat concerned to deny the benefit of appointment despite petitioner having many per cent higher marks than the appointed candidate, namely, respondent no.8 Md. Imran. There is material to show that he had appeared along with Md. Imran for receiving appointment letter but the Panchayat authorities avoided or evaded issuance of letter to the petitioner and surreptitiously appointed respondent no.8. Imran. There is material to show that he had appeared along with Md. Imran for receiving appointment letter but the Panchayat authorities avoided or evaded issuance of letter to the petitioner and surreptitiously appointed respondent no.8. Both of them belong to the extremely backward class and they were claimant to the same post on which the petitioner was denied the appointment. It is the contention of the learned counsel representing petitioner that the Appellate Authority has committed an error by recording and holding, without any material being available, that petitioner did not appear on the date fixed for issuance of appointment letter and this was the reason for appointment of private respondent no.8. This fact has been held to be a gospel truth by the Appellate Authority on the basis of the assertion or statement made by the Panchayat rather than on the assertion made contrary to that by the petitioner. It is not a case where individual notices were required to be given as such. To that extent the Appellate Authority could be correct that there was newspaper publication giving information about the dates on which appointment letters were to be distributed. The question is whether any foul play was deliberately practiced by the Panchayat concerned in not giving appointment letter to the petitioner even though he participated because the Panchayat was keen in accommodating some body else having lesser marks in the present case. Learned counsel representing private respondent no.8 tried to impress upon the Court that his client was claiming appointment in a different category and he had no clash of interest with the petitioner. One was claimant under the general category and the other was under the extremely backward category. Attention of the Court has been drawn to page 3 of the said order where roster clearance has been dealt with and there is a finding that both petitioner as well as private respondent were claimant under reserved category of extremely backward class. Therefore, the fine distinction which is sought to be made on behalf of the private respondent seems to be contrary to record. The Appellate authority has erred by trying to put blame on the petitioner for not turning up for receiving appointment letter on the basis of such statement of such people who were behind the mischief in denying the benefit of appointment to the petitioner. The Appellate authority has erred by trying to put blame on the petitioner for not turning up for receiving appointment letter on the basis of such statement of such people who were behind the mischief in denying the benefit of appointment to the petitioner. The Court feels that dual standards have been applied in the matter because petitioner’s consistent view or assertion is that he was present on the date fixed by the government i.e. 13.08.2010 and 14.08.2010 but, finding no other way, ignoring the claim of the petitioner who had higher merit, the plea of his not turning up was taken. Another contention of the learned counsel also merits consideration based on a decision of this Court rendered in the case of Chitranjan Kumar Singh Vs. State of Bihar and others, reported in 2014 (4) PLJR 184 read with Rule 9 and the proviso thereto where Panchayat is obliged to send letter of appointment by registered post to the selected candidate and their turning up personally before the Panchayat is not pre-requisite.” 25. It appears that the learned single Judge in the aforementioned case has referred to the judgment of this Court in the case of reported in 2010 (4) PLJR 183 . 26. In this context, we must refer to the decision of this Court in the case of Chitranjan Kumar Singh Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors., reported in 2010 (4) PLJR 183 , wherein similar situation had arisen because of a challenge having been placed by certain candidates, who were much higher in the merit list but were not selected as they had been shown absent at the time of counselling and people below in the merit list were appointed as a consequence thereof. In the said case, a pretext has been raised as to the notices having been sent through the U.P.C., but they were found to be a day or two prior to the dates of counselling. The Court thus observed as such: “5. Now, I may come to the plea that was taken before the Panchayat Secretary that notices were sent by U.P.C. to all the candidates as most of them did not appear for counselling pursuant to the notice, petitioners who were below in the merit list appeared and were selected. The Court thus observed as such: “5. Now, I may come to the plea that was taken before the Panchayat Secretary that notices were sent by U.P.C. to all the candidates as most of them did not appear for counselling pursuant to the notice, petitioners who were below in the merit list appeared and were selected. In relation to this, this Court would first observe, as to why when advertisements are issued calling for applications, date, time and place for scrutiny of application, counselling and preparation of merit list and date of issuance of appointment letters are not fixed at hand and made known to public. This Court has found that in some cases in some districts this is a practice that is followed. That makes the system of selection transparent. Here, why was this not followed is not known. Here, the merit list was prepared in January, for two months there was no activity, then suddenly on 8th March activities start and between 8th to 10th of March, postal notices (did as U.P.C.) are issued, counselling held and appointment letters issued. Appointment is, admittedly, denied to much more meritorious candidates, If this is not fraud, I wonder what it is. In connection of U.P.C., all I can say is that a similar plea was taken in the case of Dadakh Yashwantrao Kankarrao vs. E.V. alias Balasaheb Vikhe Patil and Ors. since reported in AIR 1994 Supreme Court 678. In paragraph 59, this is what the Apex Court has held:- “...It is also of significance that Gadakh alleges having sent a letter dated 16th May, 1991 under certificate of posting to the Maharashtra Times Office disputing correctness of the news-items (Exh.-90). The receipt of that letter by the addressee is denied and the likelihood of its dispatch by Gadakh is extremely doubtful since it was not sent by registered post and a certificate of posting being easy to obtain is not reliable. Expense being immaterial in that election for both sides, it is extremely unlikely that Gadakh would send such a letter under certificate of posting and not by registered post...” 27. We are also in the agreement that the ratio of the decision of these two cases as we do not find that there is sufficient material on record to prove that in actuality, notices were sent to the appellant to appear in the counselling. We are also in the agreement that the ratio of the decision of these two cases as we do not find that there is sufficient material on record to prove that in actuality, notices were sent to the appellant to appear in the counselling. We also are not inclined to accept the assertion that nobody appeared at the 5th counselling (though the same finds recorded for the simple reason that had there been adequate notice to the candidates in the 5th counselling, the claim of the other candidate having better marks could not have appeared in the said counselling.) 28. Another feature which does not find favour with us is as to how the writ petitioner Renu Kumari could have been issued an appointment letter dated 24.03.2007 even prior to the date of resolution for appointing her and this appears to be clearly indicative of some irregular practice being adopted by the selection committee. 29. We have further delved into the provisions of Clause 4(iii) of the Letter No.7/Ni.-3-02/06-1114 dated 24.07.2006 mentioned in Chapter 7 of Shikshak Niyojan Abham Seva Sertai Margyadarshika, which is extracted herein below: ^^fu;ekofy;ksa esa le:irk rFkk fHkUurk,¡ 4- fofHkUu inksa ij fu;kstu gsrq vyx&vyx fu;ekoyh gksrs gq, Hkh iwjh izfØ;k rFkk izko/kkuksa esa dfri; lekurk,¡ rFkk dqN fHkUurk,¡ gSa] ftldh vksj /;ku vkd`"V gksuk pkfg,A eq[; lekurk,¡ %& (i) (ii) (iii) lHkh fu;qfDr;ksa ds fy, iapk;r jkt laLFkkvksa dks 15 fnuksa ds fy, lkoZtfud lwpuk fudkyuk gSA iSuy rS;kj djus ij mls lkoZtfud djuk gS rFkk vkifÙk;ksa ds fy, 7 fnuksa dk le; nsuk gSA iSuy ls p;fur mEehnokjksa dks 10 fnuksa dk le; lgefr rFkk ;ksxnku nsus ds fy, nsuk gSA^^ 30. The same Rule has also been reiterated in the Rules as framed in 2008 for which supplementary guidelines were again sent wherein in Rule 5 it was mandated that there must be proper publication of notice and under Rule 9, the merit list was also required to be prepared and published. It was also indicated therein that if any candidate was not present, his candidature would not be cancelled. 31. Neither the writ petitioner nor the State respondents have come up with the dates on which the merit panel was finalized and published. The manner of communication to the merit panelist for appearance before the authorities for counselling is also not clear from any of the averments made by the concerned respondents. 31. Neither the writ petitioner nor the State respondents have come up with the dates on which the merit panel was finalized and published. The manner of communication to the merit panelist for appearance before the authorities for counselling is also not clear from any of the averments made by the concerned respondents. It is also apparent that after the dates of verification of documents was published on 13th October, 2006, there is nothing on record to indicate when the merit panel was finalised. On the contrary, there is a clear-cut finding that none of the candidates of the 5th counselling had appeared is rather improbable. It is not clear as to whether the dates had been published for the 5th and 6th counselling and also whether proper information had been disseminated for the 5th and 6th counselling. The only evidence which appears from the entire records is the affidavit of Mukhiya (respondent Nos.8 and 9), who have stated that final counselling dates were made by means of public notice to all concerned and was affixed at the notice board before the office of the D.P.O. fixing the date and time before the Niyojan Ikayi for final counselling. However, there is no mention as to when the final merit list was prepared and when and in what manner published after the Aupbanidhak Suchi was prepared after verification of papers and documents. The list in which Kumari Anita and Renu Kumari have been appointed indicates that they had participated in the 7th counselling and had been selected. In the resolution, which has been marked Annexure-C, it appears that in the first counseeling dated 08.03.2007 and 09.03.2007, one Poonam Kumari had appeared but in the second counsellling dated 11.03.2007 and 12.03.2007 and third counselling dated 16.03.2007 and 17.03.2007, none of the candidates had appeared. Thereafter, it was decided that the 7th counselling would be held on 21.03.2007 and the notice for the same be pasted on the wall of the Panchayat Bhawan. Thereafter, it was decided that the 7th counselling would be held on 21.03.2007 and the notice for the same be pasted on the wall of the Panchayat Bhawan. However, from future documents, it appears that respondent No.3-the District Education Officer has also filed an affidavit stating that a joint enquiry had been conducted with regard to the appointments of the Niyojan of 2006 and it had been found by the authorities that there was no clear evidence of the pasting of the 5th counselling list though it had been contended that the said was made public by pasting the same on the Panchayat Bhawan. Paragraphs 3 and 4 of the report dated 29.04.2017 issued from the office of the Regional Deputy Director of Education, Purnia Division, Purnia is extracted hereunder : ^^dsl u0 & vihyokn la[;k@03@2016 js.kq dqekjh cuke fcgkj jkT; ,oa vU; esa fnukad 20-03-2017 dks jkT; vihyh; izkf/kdkj] f'k{kk foHkkx] fcgkj iVuk }kjk ikfjr vkns'k ds vuqikyu esa xfBr la;qDr tkWp ny {ks=h; f’k{kk mifuns'kd] iwf.kZ;k¡ izeaMy] iwf.kZ;k¡ ,oa ftyk iapk;rh jkt inkf/kdkjh] dfVgkj }kjk fd, x, tk¡p ls lacaf/kr la;qDr tk¡p izfrosnu ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2- dafMdk 2 ds lanHkZ esa dguk gS fd xzke iapk;r jkt if'peh pkaniqj ds f'k{kd fu;kstu 2006 esa dqy 747 vH;fFkZ;ksa us vkosnu tek fd;k FkkA ftlesa ls dqy&419 vH;fFkZ;ksa ds }kjk foHkkx ls fu/kkZfjr frfFk fnukad 17-10-2006 ls fnukad 20-10-2006 rd izek.k i=ksa dk lR;kiu djok;k x;k ¼dkmfUlfyax iath dh lR;kfir Nk;kizfr lk{; layXu½A iapk;r lfpo us crk;k fd fnukad 17&20 vDVwcj 2006 dks lR;kiu esa mifLFkr 419 vH;fFkZ;ksa dk es?kk lwph dksfVokj jksLVj ds vuqlkj izFke iSuy ls ysdj vkBoha iSuy ¼vkSicaf/kd½ lwph ¼lk{; layXu½ rS;kj dj vkB pj.kksa es Øe'k% izFke lwph dk dkmfUlfyax fnukad 08-01-2007] f}rh; lwph dk dkmfUlfyax fnukad 27@28-02-2007] r`rh; lwph dk dkmfUlfyax fnukad 05@06-03-2007] prqFkZ lwph dk dkmfUlfyax fnukad 08-03-2007] iape lwph dk dkmfUlfyax fnukad 11@12-03-2007] NBh lwph dk dkmfUlfyax fnukad 16@17-03-2007] lIre fnukad 21-03-2007 ,oa v"Ve lwph dk fnukad 31-03-2007 dka vafre lk{kkRdkj lgefr i= izkIr djus gsrq fu/kkZfjr fd;k x;k FkkA 3- dafMdk 3 ds lanHkZ esa dguk gS fd mifLFkr eqf[k;k ,oa iapk;r lfpo us crk;k fd rRdkyhu iapk;r lfpo ds }kjk iape vkSicaf/kd lwph dks iapk;r Hkou ds fnoky ij fpidk;k x;k Fkk rFkk bldh lwpuk iz[k.M f'k{kk izlkj inkf/kdkjh dks Hkh fn;k x;k FkkA fnukad 09-03-2007 dks gLrk{kfjr iape vkSicaf/kd lwph esa Øekad 09 ij xaqtu dqekjh dk uke vafdr gS] ijUrq cSBd dh dk;Zokgh iath ds voyksdu ls Kkr gksrk gS fd fnukad 01-03-2007 ds ckn fnukad 19-03-2007 dks fu;kstu lfefr dh cSBd gqbZ FkhA tcfd fnukad 11-03-2007 ,oa 12-03-2007 dks iape lwph dk dkmfUlfyax dh frfFk fu/kkZfjr FkhA iapk;r ,oa iz[kaM esa iape vkSicaf/kd lwph fpidkus dk dksbZ Li"V izek.k ugha feyk gSA mifLFkr iz[kaM f'k{kk inkf/kdkjh] lesyh ,oa iz[kaM fodkl inkf/kdkjh] lesyh ds }kjk crk;k x;k fd dkxtkrksa ds voyksdu ls Kkr gksrk gS fd lacaf/kr iapk;r ds es/kk lwph dk izdk'ku iz[kaM dk;kZy; ds lwpuk iÍ ij fd;k x;k FkkA ¼fnukad 28-10-2006 dks vk;ksftr cSBd dh dk;Zokgh iath ds izLrko la[;k 3 dh Nk;kizfr voyksdukFkZ layXu½A 4- dafMdk 4 ds lanHkZ esa dguk gS fd cSBd iath ds voyksdu esa ik;k x;k fd fnukad 19-03-2007 ds ckn fnukad 26-03-2007 dks gh fu;kstu lfefr dh cSBd vk;ksftr dh xbZ Fkh] ftlds izLrko la0 3 esa vafdr fd;k x;k gS fd fnukad 21-03-2007 ds dkmfUlfyax esa mifLFkr vH;FkhZ dks fu;kstu i= fuxZr fd;k tk,A^^ fdUrq js.kq dqekjh dk fu;kstu i= fnukad 24-03-2007 dks fuxZr fd;k x;k gSA fnukad 26-03-2007 dh frfFk esa fyIr ys[ku (overwriting) izrhr gksrk gSA ¼fnukad 26-03-2007 dks vk;ksftr cSBd dh dk;Zokgh iath ,oa js.kw dqekjh ds fu;kstu i= dh Nk;kizfr layXu½A g0@& vLi"V ftyk iapk;rh jkt inkf/kdkjh dfVgkjA g0@& vLi”V {ks=h; f'k{kk mi funs'kd] iwf.k;k¡ izeaMy] iwf.k;k 32. It thus appears that there was some violation of the guidelines and underlying malpractice in the selections made in 2006 which led to a series of litigations engineered by both the parties. 33. We have also noticed that respondent no.11 Renu Kumari while filing the writ petition, bearing C.W.J.C. No.8187 of 2017, did not disclose before the Court that the present appellant had already been appointed and was functioning as Panchayat Teacher in pursuance of the order by which Kumari Anita had been displaced. It was under such premises that an application for vacating the interim order dated 10.07.2017 was filed by the present appellant wherein she had categorically averred that the writ petitioner was guilty of suppressio veri as she had failed to disclose before the Court that vide order dated 30.12.2015 passed by the District Teacher Appointment Appellate Authority, Katihar in Appeal Case No.34 of 2014, the petitioner was appointed as Panchayat Teacher vide Memo No.14516 dated 05.02.2016. As such, she was functioning on the post since 09.02.2016 after giving her joining to the Primary School, Ram Nagar, Block Sameli, District-Katihar. It was only because of the fact that the writ petitioner had misrepresented the facts of the case that this Court had been persuaded into passing an order of interim stay on 10.07.2017. 34. Having observed as herein above, we are thus of the considered opinion that the learned single Judge while proceeding to dispose of the writ application has not been able to appreciate that the writ petitioner herself was not entitled to the relief as claimed by her and the Court proceeded on the premise that since Renu Kumari had not been made party and was not heard in the earlier proceeding, her removal necessitated interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the considered opinion of this Court, we find that a person seeking relief under Article 226 must come to this Court with clean hands. We find that Renu Kumari being apprehensive and endangered by the order dated 06.09.2007 passed by the B.D.O., who was then the competent authority, had also preferred a writ application and while the same remained pending, she was also pursuing a parallel remedy before the District Teachers Appellate Authority in the wake of the new law which has come into force then. Thus, we cannot say that she was oblivious to the litigation, which had been generated on account of the order dated 06.09.2007 passed by the B.D.O., which led to a series of litigations; one between Gunjan Kumari (appellant) and Kumari Anita, the other between said Kumari Anita and Renu Kumar (petitioner herein), who had been contesting the order dated 06.09.2007. 35. As such, in our view and upon consideration of all facts and circumstances and for reasons that have been stated herein above, we find that there has been no violation of the principles of natural justice in the case of the writ petitioner Renu Kumari. It was only because of suppression of material facts that the writ Court was persuaded to hold as such. Having found that there are ample reasons whereby the writ petitioner’s case does not deserve consideration, we accordingly set aside the order of the learned single Judge and restore the appellant to the post of Panchayat Teacher. 36. In the result, the appeal succeeds. However, in the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.