JUDGMENT : ANJANA MISHRA, J. Re : I.A. No. 2 of 2019 in L.P.A. No. 356 of 2019 1. After having heard learned counsel for the appellants, we are satisfied that the sufficient cause has been shown to condone the delay. Delay is, accordingly, condoned and the Appeal shall be treated to be within time. Re : L.P.A. No. 356 of 2019 and 769 of 2018 The present Letters Patent Appeal bearing L.P.A. No. 356 of 2019 has been preferred against the order of the learned Single Judge passed in C.W.J.C. No. 19838 of 2016, disposed of along with other analogous case vide order dated 20.04.2018, has been put to test in this Intra Court Appeal. The appellants herein are aggrieved by the direction issued by the learned Single Judge to the Employment Unit of Jandaha, to prepare the merit-list within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt/production of a copy of the order. The Employment Unit was further directed to fix the date of counselling of the candidates in order to settle the merit-list within a period of one month, form the date of publication of merit-list and further for issuance of appointment letter within 15 days from the date of completion of counselling. 2. Another L.P.A. bearing L.P.A. No. 769 of 2018 arising out of C.W.J.C. No. 7782 of 2018 (Arun Kumar Jha and Ors. Vs. State of Bihar and Ors.) had also been preferred by the same set of appellants seeking to set aside the order dated 17.05.2018 whereby the same Single Judge has deemed it fit and proper to recall the order dated 17.05.2018 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 7782 of 2018 to the extent of granting status quo. The order is extracted hereinbelow:- “In view of the subsequent development, the Court deems it fit and proper to recall the order dated 07.05.2018 to the extent of granting status quo. The authority involved in the selection process may proceed in accordance with the observation made by this Court in the judgment dated 25.04.2018 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 19838 of 2016 and analogous cases. Put up this case after three months.” 3. The authority involved in the selection process may proceed in accordance with the observation made by this Court in the judgment dated 25.04.2018 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 19838 of 2016 and analogous cases. Put up this case after three months.” 3. It is important to indicate here that C.W.J.C. No. 7782 of 2018, the writ petitioners came before this Court with a prayer for the following reliefs:- i. For issuance of a writ in the nature of a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated03.04.2018 in Appeal No. 302/2017 and analogous cases of State Appellate Authority (Education Department) Bihar whereby and wherein the State Appellate Authority has been pleased to uphold the order dated 05.11.2015 passed in appeal No. H.C.-24/2013 by the District Teachers Appellate Tribunal by which the entire Niyojan process pertaining to the advertisement of the year 2008 and effective Niyojan in the year 2010 has been cancelled with direction to initiate the fresh process of employment. ii. For quashing of the order dated 28.01.2016 contained in Memo No. 233 passed by the Block Development Officer cum Secretary Block teacher Niyojan Unit, Jandaha by which the services of the petitioner has been terminated. iii. For issuance of writ of mandamus commanding the respondent authorities to reinstate the petitioners in their respective schools and to allow them to discharge their duty as their Niyojan letters were issued following due procedure Niyojan guidelines and rules and same does require any interference particularly when they were working as teachers from 12.08.2010 to 28.01.2016 and as such their appointments cannot be cancelled merely on the basis of certain objections raised by certain unsuccessful candidates. iv. For holding that the fresh process of Niyojan is unwarranted as the Niyojan Committee recommended the names of successful selected candidates strictly in accordance with the rule and guidelines of Teacher Niyojan (amended) 2008 and accordingly punished provisional merit list and thereafter issued Niyojan letters on 12.08.2010 as per the direction of State Govt. And as such there is no illegality in the Niyojan Process. v. For holding that Frivolous claim and counter claim of the certain unsuccessful candidates cannot be a reason to reverse/cancel the entire Niyojan/selection process particularly in the circumstances when the petitioners have been working in different schools since the date of their appointment in the year 2010. vi. And as such there is no illegality in the Niyojan Process. v. For holding that Frivolous claim and counter claim of the certain unsuccessful candidates cannot be a reason to reverse/cancel the entire Niyojan/selection process particularly in the circumstances when the petitioners have been working in different schools since the date of their appointment in the year 2010. vi. For holding that the District Teachers Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal) has transgressed its jurisdiction firstly by issuing direction for a constitution of a committee and subsequently quashing the whole Niyojan process of the year 2008 of Jandaha Block which is not as per law laid down by the Division Bench of the Hon’ble High Court.” 4. It is interesting to note here that on the date the order was passed in C.W.J.C. No. 19838 of 2016 disposed of on 20.04.2018, this writ application bearing C.W.J.C. No. 7782 of 2018 had already been filed. However, when the matter was taken up on 07.05.2018, such fact was not brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, on 07.05.2018, the following order was passed:- “Issue notice to the respondent No.7 to 32 in admission matter for which the petitioner shall file the necessary requisites in ordinary process as well as Speed Post both within two weeks. Put up after service of notice on respondent No.7 to 32, indicating therein as to why not the Court may direct fresh selection process by the employment unity from the stage of verification of the document, preparation of the merit list and counseling for appointment in the employment unit concerned. In the meanwhile, there shall be status quo.” 5. Before proceeding further to deal with the merits of the case, it would be appropriate to glance through the history of the present litigation which can briefly be enumerated as follows:- i. “The second phase of Appointment/Niyojan on the post of Block Teachers of Jandaha Block in the district of Vaishali, was initiated in the year 2008, and on 12.08.2010, the appellants were finally issued Niyojan letters, strictly in compliance with the Rules/Guidelines and procedure prescribed in respect of second phase and, as a consequence of such letters, the appellants have been continuously discharging their duties for more than six years and have also received their salary. ii. ii. A challenge was placed to the aforementioned selection process by some unsuccessful candidates who filed a complaint on 03.09.2010 before the District Teachers Appellate Tribunal, Vaishali, alleging certain irregularities in the Niyojan process without impleading these appellants as party. The Tribunal, on the basis of its report dated 01.09.2011, contained in Letter No. 831 (Annexure- 2), passed an order dated 15.10.2011, directing a fresh process of Niyojan. iii. This order dated 15.10.2011 passed by the District Teachers Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’) was challenged in several writ application bearing C.W.J.C. No. 19770 of 2011, C.W.J.C. No. 20574 of 2011 and C.W.J.C. No. 6014 of 2012, which was disposed of by a common order dated 21.01.2013, by which the order dated 15.10.2011 was quashed and a further direction was issued to the Tribunal to pass fresh orders after hearing these appellants who had been discharging their duties on the post of Block Teachers in the respective schools in Jandaha Block of Vaishali District. iv. It is relevant to mentioned here that earlier while hearing C.W.J.C. No. 19770 of 2011, the Bench hearing the writ application had stayed the order dated 15.10.2011 which is extracted hereunder:- “In the meantime, the impugned order dated 15.10.2011, passed by the District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority, Vaishali at Hajipur and any consequential order based thereon shall remained stayed.” v. In view of the aforementioned order, the appellants continued to discharge their duties in their respective schools and also got their salaries continuously. vi. As a consequence of the order dated 21.01.2013 disposing of the writ applications filed by the appointed candidates, the Tribunal in Appeal No. H.C-24/13 directed the District Education Officer to constituted a Three Member Committee which would conduct a fresh enquiry in the mater and submit a report and in pursuant thereof, the D.P.O. (Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan), Vaishali, submitted his report on 15.08.2014, merely reiterating the report dated 01.09.2011, without actually looking into the matter and depending on the same report. The Tribunal passed an order dated 05.11.2015 in Appeal No. H.C.- 24/13 whereby the entire selection process which have been completed in the year 2010 was set to naught and it further directed for initiation of a fresh process of Niyojan. vii. The Tribunal passed an order dated 05.11.2015 in Appeal No. H.C.- 24/13 whereby the entire selection process which have been completed in the year 2010 was set to naught and it further directed for initiation of a fresh process of Niyojan. vii. Being aggrieved by the order dated 05.11.2015, passed in Appeal No. H.C.-24/13, the aggrieved candidates who were selected and functioning came to this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 19236 of 2015, but since the State Appellate Authority had been constituted for deciding such disputes, the said writ applications were withdrawn. The said order dated 11.08.2017 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 19236 of 2015 is extracted hereunder:- “Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. After some arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners sought permission to withdraw the writ petition to move before the State Appellate Authority against the order dated 05.11.2015 passed in Appeal Case No. HC 24 of 2013 by the District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority, Vaishali. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents do not oppose. 4. In view thereof, the writ petition stands disposed off as withdrawn with liberty aforesaid. 5. If an appeal is filed before the State Appellate Authority within three weeks from today, along with a copy of this order, the same shall be considered and disposed off on merits within the statutory period.” viii. Thereafter, the appellants approached the State Appellate Authority as per the directions dated 11.08.2017 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 19236 of 2015. ix. It is important to indicate here that in the meantime, the B.D.O.-cum-Secretary, Block Teacher Niyojan Unit, Jandaha had issued Office Order dated 28.01.2016 contained in Memo No. 233, terminating the services of the Appellants. The appellants filed Appeal No. 302 of 2017 before the State Appellate Authority bringing on record all materials relating to the litigation as well as with the relevant judgments passed by the Hon’ble High Court as well as the earlier judgment of the State Appellate Authority. However, the State Appellate Authority without going into the merits and the grounds urged in the Appeal, passed an order in a wholly mechanical manner on 03.04.2018, which has led to the filing of C.W.J.C. No. 7782 of 2018, wherein the learned Single Judge after hearing the matter issued notice on respondents 7 to 32 and further granted “status quo” vide order dated 07.05.2018. x. Soon thereafter, the C.W.J.C. No. 7782 of 2018 came to be listed once again on 17.05.2018 wherein the order dated 07.05.2018 was recalled and further issued direction to proceed in accordance with the direction to the authority involved to proceed with the selection process in accordance with the observation made by this court in the judgment dated 20.04.2018 (wrongly mentioned as 25.04.2018) passed in C.W.J.C. No. 19838 of 2016 and analogous cases. The Court has further directed that State Appellate Authority C.W.J.C. No. 7782 of 2018 be listed after three months, thus rendering the entire writ application as infructuous. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order has been passed by the learned Single Judge ignoring the fact that the Niyojan letter to these appellants had been issued in the year 2010 following all legal formalities and the prescribed procedure and that the entire litigation was the product of the unsuccessful candidates who were litigating for no valid reasons. 7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants further submitted that the Principles of Law as enunciated by this Court in case of Puja Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. (LPA 1366/2014 vide order dated 11.01.2016) have been completed sidetracked while delivering the impugned judgment as this Court had clearly defied the extent and jurisdiction of the Tribunal which was, but a quasi judicial body and was not required to interfere, quashed the Niyojan process and its jurisdiction was confined only to the extent of inter se disputes between the parties and not beyond the same. Learned counsel for appellants further contended that the learned Single Judge having entertained the case and also issued direction for existence of status quo ought not to have recalled the order on the basis of some other order passed in C.W.J.C. No. 19838 of 2016. Learned counsel for the appellant further contended that in the wake of there being two contradictory orders, one passed in State Appellate Authority as a consequence of direction issued in C.W.J.C. No. 19838 of 2016 and the other in State Appellate authority in C.W.J.C. No. 7782 of 2018, the appropriate safeguard would have been to re-hear the case afresh and pass a common order, but, instead the learned Single Judge recalled his earlier order and directed for proceeding in accordance with the earlier order passed in State Appellate authority in C.W.J.C. No. 19838 of 2016. It was thus submitted that the order dated 17.05.2018 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 7782 of 2018 be set aside, as its existence would occasion miscarriage of justice. 8. While hearing the aforementioned Appeal learned counsel for the appellants pointed out that the genesis of the dispute appears to have been dealt with in a previous writ application being C.W.J.C. No. 19838 of 2016, but without impleading the appellants as party, this necessitated the said case bearing L.P.A. No. 356 of 2019 (arising out of C.W.J.C. No. 19838/2016) to be tagged and listed along with this appeal. A copy of the L.P.A. and the writ application was directed to be served upon learned counsel appearing in C.W.J.C. No. 19838 of 2016 and Shri Amresh Kumar Singh, Advocate has appeared to resist both the Appeals. It is relevant to mention here that the order dated 20.04.2018 was passed in District Teachers Appellate Tribunal without impleading the appellants as respondents and, therefore, during the arguments in Appeal No. 769 of 2018, this Hon’ble Court in I.A. No. 1 of 2019 permitted this case to be heard along with L.P.A. No. 769 of 2018 and this appeal has been preferred along with the application for permission to file the present memo of appeal. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the Appellant and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-State of Bihar as also learned counsel for the private respondents Shri Amresh Kumar Singh and perused the materials on record. The appellants herein who were also the writ petitioners of C.W.J.C. No. 7782 of 2018 have been litigating this matter ever since their appointments were placed under challenge by the unsuccessful applicant of the selection of 2008. The appellants herein who were also the writ petitioners of C.W.J.C. No. 7782 of 2018 have been litigating this matter ever since their appointments were placed under challenge by the unsuccessful applicant of the selection of 2008. It has been noted by us that certain irregularities had been noticed in the very first report which was conducted by the District Programme Officer (Establishment) Vaishali, on the entrustment made by the District Education Officer, which was contained in Letter No. 955 dated 27.09.2011, contents thereof are extracted hereunder:- ^^¼1½ foHkkxh; funs'kkuqlkj f'k{kd fu;kstu o"kZ 2008 dh lEiw.kZ dkjZokbZ@dk;Zokgh ekuo lalk/ku fodkl foHkkx }kjk miyC/k djkbZ xbZ iath ij dh tkuh FkhA tcfd Á[kaM f'k{kd fu;kstu bdkbZ tUnkgk ds vfHkys[kksa ds voyksdu ls Li"V gksrk gS fd fu;kstu bdkbZ }kjk foHkkxh; iath dk mi;ksx ugha dj cktk: lknh iath ij dk;Zokgh iath [kksyk x;k ,oa dk;Zokgh ÁkjEHk dh x;h rFkk dkUlfyax dh dkjokbZ dh x;h tks foHkkxh; vkns'k dk lh/kk&lh/kk mYya?ku gSA ¼2½ foHkkxh; vf/klwpuk la[;k 3151 fnukad 25-08-2008 dh dafMdk 06 esa ;g Li"V fd;k x;k gS fd fu;kstu dh Øeokj dkjokbZ@dk;Z lekfIr ds i'pkr iath dks can dj fn;k tk;sxk] ftl ij lacaf/kr fu;kstu bdkbZ ds de ls de nks lnL;ksa dk gLrk{kj vfuok;Z gksxkA Á[kaM f'k{kd fu;kstu bdkbZ tUnkgk }kjk iath dk fd;s x;s mi;ksx ds i'pkr fdlh iath dks can ugha fd;k x;k gS] tks Álkafxd i= ds dafMdk 06 dk [kqyk mYya?ku gS ,oa fu;kstu esa vfu;ferk dks ifjyf{kr djrk gSA ¼3½ foHkkx }kjk fu;kstu i= forj.k dh fu/kkZfjr frfFk dks fcuk cSBd cqyk, 12-08-2010 dh frfFk esa dk;Zikyd inkf/kdkjh ds gLrk{kj ls fu;kstu i= fuxZr fd;k tkuk] foHkkxh; fu;e ds Áfrdwy gSA ¼4½ fu;ekuqlkj dk;Zokgh ds vUr esa fu;kstu bdkbZ ds v/;{k lg&Á[kaM Áeq[k dk gLrk{kj gksuk pkfg,] tcfd fnukad 24-12-2008 dh cSBd ls ysdj fnukad 11-08-2011 rd dh vkgwr cSBd esa fy, x;s fu.kZ; ds ÁLrko ¼fu.kZ;½ ds vUr esa fu;kstu bdkbZ ds v/;{k dk gLrk{kj ugha gksuk] vfu;ferrk dks ifjyf{kr djrk gSA ¼5½ fnukad 17-08-2010 dks fu;kstu laca/k Áxfr Áfrosnu ¼fu;kstu frfFk 12-08-2010½ ds voyksdu ls Li"V gksrk gS fd Á[kaM fu;kstu lfefr tUnkgk ds }kjk 95 vH;fFkZ;ksa dks fu;kstu Áfrosnu esa n'kkZ;k x;k gS] fdUrq okLRkfod fu;kstu ek= 52 gSA ;g vius vki esa fojks/kkHkkliw.kZ Áfrosnu gS vkSj vfu;ferrk dks ifjyf{kr djrk gSA ¼6½ vfHkys[k ds voyksduksijkUr ik;k x;k fd fu;kstu lfefr }kjk ftls fu;kstu djuk Fkk mldk vkuu&Qkuu esa lgefr i= cukdj ,su dsu Ádkj ls gLrk{kj djkuk fu;kstu dh dkjokbZ iwjk djuk egt okLrfod p;fur vH;FkhZ ftldk iwoZ esa es/kk ds vk/kkj ij p;u fd;k x;k Fkk] dk uke gVkdj ,oa lgefr i= dks gVkuk tSls dk;Z fu;kstu lfefr }kjk fd;k tkuk] ftlls es?kkoh ,oa mPp es/kk vad ÁkIr vH;FkhZ fu;kstu ds ykHk ls oafpr jg x;s] tks fu;kstu ÁfØ;k ds ekinaM ds Áfrdwy gSA ¼7½ es/kk lwph esa p;fur mEehnokjks@vH;fFkZ;ksa dks p;ui= miyc/k dj fn;k x;k vkSj mEehnokjks ls lgefr ÁkIr dj yh xbZ] rks iqu% nwljs Árh{kkjr vH;fFkZ;ksa dks p;u i= miyC/k djkus ,oa lgefr nsrs gq, fu;kstu i= nsuk foHkkxh; funs'kksa ds Áfrdqy gSA** 10. Perused the aforementioned report dated 15.10.2011. It appears that at the very start of the selection process, the Employment Unit had proceeded to use registers available from the local market whereas the Rules specified clearly that the guidelines and the instructions which were issued for conducting the employment of Teachers in the second phase clearly indicated at Clause-5 to 10 the stages and the procedure to be followed for the process of employment. Clause 6 of the aforementioned instructions/guidelines stipulates that the District Education Officers was required to give all the Employment Units Registers which would be fully secured and was to be attested with page numbers clearly indicated therein. The concerned Gram Panchayat or the Employment Unit was to except and record applications in the said register alone and thereafter the merit list, counselling etc. was all to be maintained in the said register issued by the department. It was also indicated therein that the Secretary of the Employment Unit after the last date of receipt of application was to record in the said register, the closing of the same which was to be countersigned by at least two other members. was all to be maintained in the said register issued by the department. It was also indicated therein that the Secretary of the Employment Unit after the last date of receipt of application was to record in the said register, the closing of the same which was to be countersigned by at least two other members. This clearly indicated that a full proof method has been envisaged and the guidelines had been issued by the department for such a purpose and extract of the Rule-6 of the Notification No. 7 dated 323- 02/6 part Ka 3151 dated 25.08.2008 is extracted hereunder for ready reference:- ^^ÁkFkfed ,oa e/; fo?kky;ksa esa fu;kstu gsrq ekxZ funsZ'k&2008** fcgkj ljdkj] ekuo lalk/ku fodkl foHkkxA vf/klwpuk la[;k&7 fuŒ&3&02@06 va'k ^^d** 3151] fnukad 25-08-2008A fcgkj iapk;r ÁkjafHkd f'k{kd ¼fu;kstu ,oa lsok 'kÙkZ½ fu;ekoyh] 2006 rFkk fcgkj uxj fudk; ÁkjafHkd f'k{kd ¼fu;kstu ,oa lsok 'kÙkZ½ fu;ekoyh] 2006 dh dafMdk 19 ds v/khu ÁnÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk Á;ksx djrs gq,] jkT; ljdkj ds fu.kZ;kuqlkj f'k{kd fu;kstu fu;ekoyh] 2006 ds Øe esa f'k{kd fu;kstu ls lacaf/kr iwoZ esa fuxZr lHkh vkns'kksa] funs'kksa ,oa ifji=ksa dks fuEu gn rd la'kksf/kr djrs gq, fcgkj iapk;r ÁkjafHkd f'k{kd ¼fu;kstu ,oa lsok 'kÙkZ½ fu;ekoyh] 2006 ,oa fcgkj uxj fudk; f'k{kd ¼fu;kstu ,oa lsok 'kÙkZ½ fu;ekoyh] 2006 rFkk rRlaca/kh la'kks/ku fu;ekoyh] 2008 ds vkyksd esa jkT; ds ÁkjafHkd fo/kky;ksa esa f'k{kdksa ds f}rh; fu;kstu dh dkjZokbZ ,oa ÁfØ;k ds laca/k esa fuEufyf[kr ekxZfunsZ'k fn;s tkrs gSa %& ekxZ funsZ'k ¼d½ fu;kstu gsrq le; rkfydk & jkT; ds ÁkjafHkd fo/kky;ksa esa f'k{kdksa ds f}rh; fu;kstu dh dkjZokbZ fuEufyf[kr le; rkfydk ds vuqlkj dh tk;sxh %& ¼1½ jkT;Lrh; Áf'k{k.k dk;ZØe fnukad 01-09-2008A ¼2½ fu;kstu ls tqM+s dfeZ;ksa dk ftyk ,oa Á[k.M Lrjh; Áf'k{k.k dk;ZØe fnukad 04-09-2008 ls 10-09-2008 rdA ¼3½ ftyk }kjk jksLVj dk vuqeksnu rFkk iath ,oa jksLVj dk lHkh fu;kstu bdkbZ;ksa dh Ás"k.k fnukad 15-09-2008 rdA ¼4½ lHkh fu;kstu bdkbZ;ksa }kjk fu;kstu gsrq lwpuk dk Ádk'ku fnukad 19-09-2008A ¼5½ vkosnu i= ÁkfIr dk fnukad 25-09-2008 ls 15-10-2008 rdA ¼6½ es?kk lwph dh rS;kjh fnukad 16-10-2008 ls 25-10-2008 rdA ¼7½ es?kk lwph dk Ádk'ku fnukad 30-10-2008 ¼8½ es?kk lwph ij vkifÙk fnukad 31-10-2008 ls 14-11-2008 rdA ¼9½ vkifÙk;ksa dk fujkdj.k fnukad 17-11-2008 ls 21-11-2008 rdA ¼10½ es?kk lwph dk vafre Ádk'ku fnukad 25-11-2008A ¼11½ fu;kstu ¼dkmfUlafyax½ gsrq i=ksa dks fuxZr djuk fnukad 26-11-2008 ls 28-11-2008 rdA ¼12½ fu;kstu ¼dkmfUlafyax½ ,oa fu;kstu i= forj.k dk fnukad 15-12-2008 uxj f'k{kdA Á[k.M fodkl inkf/kdkjh ds }kjk xzke iapk;rksa esa dkmfUlfyax ds nkSjku fdlh Á[k.M Lrjh; inkf/kdkjh dks i;Zos{kd ds :i esa Hkstk tk;sxkA fnukad 19-12-2008 Á[k.M f'k{kd fnukad 24-12-2008 iapk;r f'k{kd uksV % gj dksfV ds de ls de 5 xq.kk vH;FkhZ dks cqykdjA xzke iapk;r ds de ls de 10 xq.kk vH;FkhZ dks cqykdjA ¼[k½ ¼x½ ¼?k½ ¼³½ ¼p½ vkosnu i=ksa dk iath esa la/kkj.k & ftyk f'k{kk v/kh{kd ds }kjk lHkh iapk;r lfefr@uxj fudk;@xzke iapk;rksa dks iath dh vkiwfrZ dh tk;sxhA ;g iath lqj{kk ekudksa ls ;qDr rFkk l{ke inkf/kdkjh ¼Á[k.M ,oa iapk;r ds fy, ftyk iapk;rh jkt inkf/kdkjh rFkk uxj fudk; ds fy, eq[; dk;Zikyd inkf/kdkjh ftyk ifj"kn½ ds }kjk i`"Bksa dh la[;k vafdr djrs gq, vfHkÁekf.kr gksxhA ÁR;sd xzke iapk;r ds fu;kstu bdkbZ ds }kjk blh iath esa f'k{kd fu;kstu gsrq ÁkIr vkosnu i=ksa rFkk es?kk lwph] fu;kstu gsrq dkmaflfyax vkfn dk C;kSjk la/kkfjr fd;k tk;sxkA fu;kstu bdkbZ ds lfpo ds }kjk vkosnu ÁkfIr dh vafre frfFk dks vkosnu i=ksa dh Áfof"V ds mijkUr iath dks can dj fn;k tk;sxk ,oa lacaf/kr fu;kstu bdkbZ ds de ls de 2 lnL;ksa ds }kjk mls vfuok;Z :i esa gLrk{kfjr dj fn;k tk;sxkA xzke iapk;rksa ds ekeys esa vkosnu ÁkIr djus dh vfUre frfFk dks ÁFker% iath dks can dj gLrk{kj dj fn;k tk;sxkA rRi'pkr Á[k.M }kjk miyC/k djk;s x;s vkosnuksa dks ^^Á[k.M ls ÁkIr vkosnu** 'kh"kZd nsrs gq, iath esa Áfof"V dj iqu% iath dks can fd;k tk;sxkA xzke iapk;rksa ds ekeys esa iath Dyksftax ist ij f'k{kd lnL; dk gLrk{kj vfuok;Z gksxkA iapk;r lfefr rFkk uxj fudk;ksa esa ÁkIr vkosnu i=ksa ,oa es?kk lwfp;ksa@dkjZokbZ dk la/kkj.k dEI;wVj esa Hkh fd;k tk ldsxkA** 11. We also note that the Enquiry Report clearly indicates that despite the existence of three other registers supplied by the department, the selection Unit had used registers from the local market on the flimsy pretext that there were many candidates. Thus, their action was in utter derogation of departmental instructions and it can be well conclusively held that such an action on their part was to give illgotten benefits to undeserving candidates which cannot be sustained in the eye of law. 12. Thus, from the report which has been referred to hereinabove, it is clear that at the very initial stage the finding arrived at by the Enquiry Officer under instructions from the District Education Officer was that such a procedure had not been followed. This finding came to be supported by another report by the Three Member Committee dated 16.08.2014 wherein it has been observed that it was found that at the stage of counselling, dispute the specific instructions that the registers made available by the department were alone to be used, the Selection Unit had deviated from the instructions and had made use of registers from the local market and on those very registers counselling had been heavily made. An attempt was also made by the Selection Unit to justified the use of such registers on the ground that in view of the heavy rush of candidates and for want of availability of departmental registers, the Selection Unit was compelled to make use of outside registers. On examination of the registers which were made use of and which were scrutinized by the members of the Committee, it was found that even though apart from several pages most part of pages, were available for use, but instead of using them, registers from outside were brought in use. The enquiry team found that the department had made available two counselling resisters and also one register at the time of receipt of applications. Thus, at the time of counselling in all three registers were available with the Employment Unit but instead of using the same, a fourth register from the market was brought in and incidentally, in the said register counselling of an unusual number of 435 applicants were made. Thus, at the time of counselling in all three registers were available with the Employment Unit but instead of using the same, a fourth register from the market was brought in and incidentally, in the said register counselling of an unusual number of 435 applicants were made. It is needful to mention here that in the Counselling Registers No. 1, the name of 239 applicants were found to be included whereas in Counselling Register No. 9, the Selection Unit had used the same for entering the names of the applicants as well as for Counselling i.e., 15 candidates were counselled and entered in the said Register. It was also found that apart from a few pages, the rest of the Register could still have been utilized further for the purpose of counseling. In Counselling Register No. 2, the names of only 44 candidates were found to have been entered. Thus, the use of the fourth Register from the local market was wholly irregular. 13. It was in view of such finding and also other noted irregularities, the Team submitted its report. It appears from Annexure-8 that in pursuance of series of litigations which included participation of the Appellants/Petitioners of the C.W.J.C. No. 19770 of 2011, in which appellant No. 1 was petitioner No. 7. Appellant No. 2, Zarina Khatoon, was petitioner No. 2, Shahid Raza, petitioner no. 36 in C.W.J.C. No. 20574 of 2011. Tanweer Alam, petitioner No. 3 in C.W.J.C. No. 20574 of 2011, Kamlesh Rai, petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 20574 of 2011, Reeta Kumari, petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 20574 of 2011, Appellant No. 6 Reena Kumari in C.W.J.C. No. 20574 of 2011, appellant No. 11, petitioner No. 23 in C.W.J.C. No. 20574, Arvind Kumar petitioner No. 27, in C.W.J.C. No. 20574 and Poonam Kumari, appellant No. 8 is petitioner no. 34 in C.W.J.C. No. 20574 of 2011. Puja Kumari, appellant No. 10 in C.W.J.C. No.74 of 2011. Appellant No. 1 is Arun Kumar Jha is petitioner No. 7 C.W.J.C. No. 19770. Thus, the principle of nature justice has been adhered to as all the appellants herein, were duly noticed and heard in Appeals numbers 24/13 which was decided on 05.11.2015. 34 in C.W.J.C. No. 20574 of 2011. Puja Kumari, appellant No. 10 in C.W.J.C. No.74 of 2011. Appellant No. 1 is Arun Kumar Jha is petitioner No. 7 C.W.J.C. No. 19770. Thus, the principle of nature justice has been adhered to as all the appellants herein, were duly noticed and heard in Appeals numbers 24/13 which was decided on 05.11.2015. It was in pursuance of the decision of the aforementioned case that vide order contained in, the Block Development Officer, cum Secretary, Block Education Employment Unit came to the unanimous decision dated 27.01.2016 and issued letter dated 28.01.2016 contained in Memo No. 233, by which the selection and employment of the appellants were put to an end. This order was challenged in C.W.J.C. No. 19236 of 2015 which was withdrawn vide order dated 11.08.2017 with liberty to move the State Appellate Authority against the order dated 05.11.2015 and has already been referred hereinabove. 14. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State of Bihar as well as learned counsel for the Respondents and have considered the entire gamut of circumstances leading to the appointments of the present appellants. What has emanated therefrom clearly reveals that there had been large scale bungling in the appointment of teachers. It was under such glaring irregularities that the State Appellate Authority also proceeded to decide against the appointed candidates whose very existence was on the basis of an irregular process of appointment. The large scale bungling having been detected led the unsuccessful candidates to challenge the selection process which on deeper scrutiny appeared to be all pervasive on more counts than one. The use of local registers in violation of Rule 6, is indicative of the authorities having adopted unfair means to bring in their own candidates for counselling. The said departmental instructions contained in Human Resources Development Department Notification No. 7 which prohibits the use of registers has already been referred hereinabove. 15. Thus, the Employment Unit having transgressed the directions of the department in the process to be adopted for appointment, must be held to be wholly irregular as it was under a solemn duty to proceed in accordance with the Rules. 15. Thus, the Employment Unit having transgressed the directions of the department in the process to be adopted for appointment, must be held to be wholly irregular as it was under a solemn duty to proceed in accordance with the Rules. The decision of the Appellate Authority and also the learned Single Judge being in tune with the findings of the Appellate Authority, thus cannot be faulted with, and we also find that in the wake of large scale bungling and the glaring irregularities the entire selection process must be held to be illegal and the directions given for conducting a fresh selection process has to be upheld. 16. Having considered the entire facts and circumstance, we are of the clear opinion that the learned Single Judge having noticed the order of the Appellate Authority was fully justified in recalling the order of status quo and directing the selection process to continue as per the earlier direction. 17. In the result and for the forgoing reasons, we do not find any merit in the present Appeals. The order of the learned Single Judge thus cannot be faulted and stands affirmed. The Appeals stand dismissed.