JUDGMENT : Petitioner has approached this Court against the appointment of respondent No.6 as Primary Assistant Teacher (PAT) in Government Primary School, Dhangota, Block Primary Education Office, Bijhri, District Hamirpur in pursuant to her selection by the Committee constituted for the post, headed by respondent No3, Sub Divisional Magistrate Barsar, District Hamirpur on the basis of interview held on 28.02.2006 on the ground that respondent No.6 was not resident of Gram Panchayat Dhangota on the date of advertisement of vacancy and thereafter whereas, post advertised for Government Primary School, Dhangota was available to the candidates belonging to the said Gram Panchayat only. 2. It is the case of petitioner that earlier respondent No.6 was resident of Gram Panchayat Dhangota, but, Government of Himachal Pradesh vide notification dated 20th August, 2005 (Annexure A-11) had bifurcated Gram Panchayat Dhangota into two Panchayats i.e. Gram Panchayat Dhangota and Gram Panchayat Bhail and village Baroti to which respondent No.5 belongs was included in newly constituted Gram Panchayat Bhail. Further that elections for two Panchayats were held on 20th December, 2005 and 22nd December, 2005 respectively whereas, respondent No. 4 had notified/advertised vacancies of Primary Assistant Teachers in various primary schools in Education Block, Bijhri including one post in Gram Panchayat Dhangota situated in Gram Panchayat Dhangota available for general category on 29.12.2005 and last date for submission of application was 16th January, 2006. 3. It is submitted on behalf of petitioner that at the time of submitting the application, she was having qualification of B.Sc (Medical) and was meritorious than respondent No.6. However, on declaration of result, it was found that despite belonging to different Panchayat respondent No.6 Sunita Devi has been considered eligible and appointed to the post in question, whereupon, petitioner had immediately approached the Court i.e. Erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal and the Tribunal was pleased to pass an interim stay on 17.3.2016 directing the respondents not to make appointments. 4. 4. In response, respondents have pleaded that though Gram Panchayat Dhangota was bifurcated into two Panchayats, but, at the time of advertisement of vacancies and even thereafter till the date of interview the process of bifurcation had not been completed and as such Gram Panchayat Bhail had not started functioning independently till 10th March, 2006 and therefore, respondent No. 6 was eligible to be considered for the post of PAT advertised on 29.12.2005 vide Annexure A-1 in Government Primary School, Dhangota situated in Gram Panchayat Dhangota. In support of its contention, respondent/State as well as respondent No.6 have placed reliance upon certificate dated 2.4.2006 (Annexure R-6/1) issued by Pardhan, Gram Panchayat Bhail wherein he has certified that formation of Gram Panchayat was completed on 30th January, 2006 after the election of Up-Pardhan of the said Panchayat and first corum of Panchayat had met on 13th February, 2006, whereas, accounts of Gram Panchayat Dhangota and Gram Panchayat Bhail were bifurcated on 10th March, 2006. Another document relied upon by respondents, Pre-verification Character Certificate (Anneuxre R-6/2), showing respondent No.6 as bonafide resident of concerned Panchayat, has also been signed by Pardhan of Gram Panchayat Dhangota on 28.02.2006 certifying therein that though Panchayat of respondent No.6 was separated as Gram Panchayat Bhail, but she being resident of village Baroti, was earlier belonging to Gram Pancahyat Dhangota. A reliance has also been placed on a note put on the said certificate wherein it is stated that it was evident from attested copy of Ration Card enclosed with certificate that till 7.1.2006, for the residents of Gram Panchayat Bhail, Gram Panchayat Dhangota was continuing whereas advertisement for the post in question was made prior to 7.1.2006 and moreover both Panchayats are part of one and the same constituency of BDC member. Photocopy of Ration Card, Annexure R-6/3), has also been placed on record indicating that family of father of respondent No.6 was entitled for distribution of ration against ration cards from Gram Panchayat Dhangota till 7.1.2006. A copy of jamabandi for the year 1996-97, Annexure R-6/4, has also been placed on record wherein family of respondent No.6 has been reflected as owner of landed property including Gair Mumkin Abadi situated in village Dhangota. 5. A copy of jamabandi for the year 1996-97, Annexure R-6/4, has also been placed on record wherein family of respondent No.6 has been reflected as owner of landed property including Gair Mumkin Abadi situated in village Dhangota. 5. In response to revenue record, petitioner has placed on record a copy of Nakal jamabandi for the year 1996-97,but, unlike copy produced by respondent No.6, containing a note thereon of Patwari in remarks column wherein landed property as well as Gair Mumkin Abadi belonging to family of respondent No.6 has been stated to have been transferred from Mohal Dhangota to Up-Mohal Baroti vide mutation dated 11.5.02006. 6. It is pointed out by learned Additional Advocate General that though in advertisement Annexure P-1, it has been mentioned that posts in various schools as Para Teachers are lying vacant, however, as a matter of fact, Para teachers were never appointed in Primary Schools, instead Primary Assistant Teachers (PAT) were appointed after notifying the requirement of appointment of PAT on the basis of pupil-teachers ratio in a particular school and such posts were notified only after getting approval of Director Elementary Education and as evident from the opening lines of advertisement/notification Annexure A-1 in the present case also, the posts were notified in pursuant to letter of approval received from the Director, Education (Primary) bearing No. Shiksha-H(Pry)P/(8)5-9/2004 PAT dated 18th November, 2005 which indicates that this letter was with reference to appointment of PAT and therefore, mention of vacancy to the post of Para teachers is incorrect. He further submits that interview call letter sent to petitioner also indicated that post in question was of Primary Assistant Teacher and therefore, the post in petition as well as in reply has been referred as a post of Primary Assistant Teacher (PAT). 7. He further submits that interview call letter sent to petitioner also indicated that post in question was of Primary Assistant Teacher and therefore, the post in petition as well as in reply has been referred as a post of Primary Assistant Teacher (PAT). 7. Learned Additional Advocate General has also pointed out that petition was filed in the year 2006 and for appointment of teachers in Primary School, the State had formulated H.P. Prathmik Sahayak Adhyapak/Primary Assistant Teachers (PAT) Scheme 2003 which, at that time, was in force, but, by passage of time, situation has changed and as of now, no appointments as PAT teachers in Primary schools are offered for enactment of Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (in short ‘the Act’) leading to framing of R&P Rules and Policies prescribing minimum qualification in consonance with the Act and neither petitioner nor respondent No.6 was or has been appointed as PAT before enactment of the Act and now, in the changed circumstances, none of them can be appointed as PAT after about 15 years. He has further submitted that as of now, petitioner, who was aged 22 years at the time of filing the petition and was residing with her parents, may have been married in different village and thus, may have also lost the status of resident of same Panchayat in which school in question is located. 8. No doubt, petitioner is seeking direction with respect to a recruitment process undertaken by respondents authority 15 years ago. However, it is also a hard fact that petitioner had approached the Erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal immediately after disclosure of result of process by concerned authority in March, 2006 and the Tribunal had also passed interim direction directing the respondents authority to make no appointments in the meantime. At the same time, it is also a matter of record that petitioner had never filed any application for early hearing, rather, there was delay on the part of petitioner in filing the rejoinder which was filed along with application for condonation of delay in filing the same rather respondent No.6 had approached the Court twice i.e. in the years 2007 and 2013 by filing applications for early hearing in the case by stating that appointment was not being offered to her on account of stay order passed by Court. 9. 9. It would be apt to refer observations of the Supreme Court made in case Rameshwar and others vs. Jot Ram and another, reported in (1976) 1 SCC 194 , which read as under:- 6. The philosophy of the approach which commends itself to us is that a litigant who seeks justice in a perfect legal system gets it when he asks for it. But because human institutions of legal justice function slowly, and in quest of perfection, appeals and reviews at higher levels are provided for, the end product comes considerably late. But these higher Courts pronounce upon the rights of parties as the facts stood when the first Court was first approached. The delay of years flows from the infirmity of the judicial institution and this protraction of the Court machinery shall prejudice no one. Actus curiae neminem gravabit. “An act of Court shall prejudice no one.” Precedential support invoked by the appellant's counsel also lets him down provided we scan the fact situation in each of those cases and the legal propositions therein laid down. 7. The realism of our processual justice bends our jurisprudence to mould, negate or regulate reliefs in the light of exceptional developments having a material and equitable import, occurring during the pendency of the litigation so that the Court may not stultify itself by granting what has become meaningless or does not, by a myopic view, miss decisive alterations in fact-situations or legal positions and drive parties to fresh litigation whereas relief can be given right here. The broad principle, so stated, strikes a chord of sympathy in a court of good conscience. But a seeming virtue may prove a treacherous vice unless judicial perspicacity, founded on well-grounded- rules, studies the plan of the statute, its provisions regarding subsequent changes and the possible damage to the social programme of the measure if later events are allowed to unsettle speedy accomplishment of a re-structuring of the land system which is the soul of the whole enactment. No processual equity can be permitted to sabotage a cherished reform, nor individual hardship thwart social justice. This wider perspective explains the rulings cited on both sides and the law of subsequent events on pending actions. 8. In P. Venkateswarlu v. Motor & General Traders reported in AIR 1975 SC 1409 , this Court dealt with the adjectival activism relating to post-institution circumstances. This wider perspective explains the rulings cited on both sides and the law of subsequent events on pending actions. 8. In P. Venkateswarlu v. Motor & General Traders reported in AIR 1975 SC 1409 , this Court dealt with the adjectival activism relating to post-institution circumstances. Two propositions were laid down. Firstly, it was held that (SCC p. 772, para 4) 'it is basic to our processual jurisprudence that the right to relief -must be judged to exist as on the date a suitor institutes the legal proceeding'. This is an emphatic statement that the right of a party is determined by the facts as they exist on the date the action is instituted. Granting the presence of such facts, then he is entitled to its enforcement. Later developments cannot defeat his right because, as explained earlier, had the court found his facts to be true the day he sued he would have got his decree. The Court's procedural delays cannot deprive him of legal justice or rights crystallised in the initial cause of action. This position finds support in Bhajan Lal v. State of Punjab (1971) 1 SCC 34 .” (Emphasis supplied). 10. In any case, 15 years have lapsed for pendency of litigation in the Court for which litigants cannot be made to suffer and merits of claim of parties are to be adjudged as on the date of approaching the Court. However at the same time, laxity on the part of petitioner can also not be ignored. 11. Main point in issue in present petition is that as to whether respondent No.6 is to be considered a candidate belonging to Gram Pancahyat Dhangota or not. Undisputed facts in this regard are that Panchayati Raj Department of Government of H.P., vide notification dated 20th August, 2005, had published bifurcation of Gram Panchayat Dhangota, by order of Governor of Himachal Pradesh, into two Panchayats namely Gram Panchayat Dhangota and Gram Panchayat Bhail whereby Village Baroti, the village of residence of respondent No.6, was included in Gram Panchayat Bhail. Thereafter, vide notification dated 20th November, 2005 District Election Officer (Deputy Commissioner), Hamirpur had notified the dates of polling for electing office bearers of various Panchayats wherein election for office bearers of Gram Panchayats Dhangota and Bhail were notified to be held on 20.12.2005 and 22.12.2005 respectively. Thereafter, vide notification dated 20th November, 2005 District Election Officer (Deputy Commissioner), Hamirpur had notified the dates of polling for electing office bearers of various Panchayats wherein election for office bearers of Gram Panchayats Dhangota and Bhail were notified to be held on 20.12.2005 and 22.12.2005 respectively. No doubt, notification dated 20.8.2005 issued by Panchayati Raj Department contains a Clause stating therein that re-organization of Panchayats notified vide this notification shall not affect the tenure of elected office bearers of existing Panchayats. However, at the same time, this notification, in unambiguous terms, had notified re-organization of Panchayats wherein amongst others, Gram Panchayat Dhangota was bifurcated into two Panchayats, namely Gram Panchayat Dhangota and Gram Panchayat Bhail with their defined area clearly indicating the names of villages comprised therein. Therefore, areas of new constituted Gram Panchayat Bhail and Gram Panchayat Dhangota were well defined vide notification dated 20th August, 2005 but by protecting the tenure of existing office bearers of existing Panchayat i.e. old original Gram Panchayat Dhangota, but, it, by no means, defers the constitution of Panchayat or inclusion or exclusion of area from or in existing or newly constituted Gram Panchayat(s). Besides it, election to elect the office bearers of these two Panchayats were also held on 20.12.2005 and 22.12.2005 wherein residents of respective Gram Panchayat had cast their votes for electing their office bearers in their respective Panchayats. Therefore, two Panchayats i.e. Gram Panchayat Dhangota and Gram Panchayt Bhail were existing independent of each other on the date of election with clear demarcation of their area. 12. Contention of respondents that newly elected office bearers are competent and authorized to act as office bearers of said Panchayat only after taking oath may have force. But in present case, neither petitioner nor respondents have brought on record any such date on which office bearers i.e. Pardhan and Up-Pardhan of concerned Panchayat have taken oath. Otherwise also, there may be limitation to the office bearers to act as such, but, the said restrictions do not mean that concerned Gram Panchayat is not in existence. In present case, separate Panchayat, if not existed in August, 2005, was definitely in existence in December, 2005 when election was held for said Panchayat. Otherwise also, there may be limitation to the office bearers to act as such, but, the said restrictions do not mean that concerned Gram Panchayat is not in existence. In present case, separate Panchayat, if not existed in August, 2005, was definitely in existence in December, 2005 when election was held for said Panchayat. End and beginning of tenure of office bearers of earlier Panchayat or newly constituted Panchayat has no relation with existence of separate Panchayat duly notified by Panchayati Raj Department for which election had also taken place before the advertisement of post as posts were advertised by Education Department on 29.12.2005 wherein last date for submitting the applications was 16.1.2006 and on the date of notifying the vacancy and also on last date for submission of applications, separate Gram Panchayat Bhail, wherefrom respondent No. 6 belongs, was in existence, whereas post in reference was advertised in Gram Panchayat Dhangota. 13. Continuation of ration card of family of respondent No. 6 till 7th January, 2006 in Gram Panchayat Dhangota is of no consequences as till establishment of new Ration Card Depot under public distribution system of Food and Supply Department, the ration card holders of existing depot are to be continued as such which shall have no effect upon the fact of existence of new separate Gram Panchayat Bhail. 14. Certificate dated 2.4.2006, Annexure R-6/1, issued by Pardhan Gram Panchayat Bhail stating therein that formation of Gram Panchayat Bhail was completed on 30th January, 2006 on completion of election of Vice President and first coram of Panchayat had held on 13th February, 2006 and that accounts of two Gram Panchayat Dhangota and Gram Panchayat Bhail were bifurcated on 10th March, 2006, also does not certify that on the date of advertisement of post or last date of submission of applications Gram Panchayat Bhail was not in existence. Meeting of complete corum of Panchayat or delay in election of one of the office bearers of Panchayat do not negate the existence of Panchayat, rather, it indicates that Gram Panchayat Bhail was in existence at the time of Panchayat election in December, 2005. Meeting of complete corum of Panchayat or delay in election of one of the office bearers of Panchayat do not negate the existence of Panchayat, rather, it indicates that Gram Panchayat Bhail was in existence at the time of Panchayat election in December, 2005. Separation or bifurcation of accounts, of two Panchayats created from one Panchayat, is a ministerial work, which would have definitely taken place after existence of newly re-organized/ newly constituted two Panchayats or probably for this reason only, at the time of Pre-verification of Character Certificate of respondent No.6 on 28.2.2006 showing bonafide resident of concerned Panchayat, Pardhan Gram Panchayat Dhangota had verified that though her Panchayat has been separated as Bhail, but, she (respondent No.6 Sunita Rani wife of Shri Deepak Kumar, resident of village Baroti) was earlier belonging to Gram Panchayat Dhangota. Undisputedly, interview for the post was conducted on 28.2.2006 and from the endorsement made by Pardhan, on Pre-verification Character Certificate, it is evident that on that day, respondent No. 6 was belonging to Gram Panchayat Bhail. 15. Nakal jamabandi for the year 1996-97 relied upon by respondent No.6 to establish that landed property of her family was situated in Mohal Dhangota is also of no help to her as vide mutation dated 11.5.2006 the said property was transferred to Up-Mohal Baroti, i.e. a Up-Mohal included in Gram Pancahyat Bhail, and further ownership of landed property of Gram Panchayat is not sufficient to establish that one is resident of the said Gram Panchayat particularly when village of residence of that person has been included in another Panchayat. In present case, the name of village in ration card as well as all other documents has been mentioned as Baroti and the said village vide notification dated 20th August, 2005 has been included in newly constituted Gram Panchayat on re-organization of Panchayats. Therefore, neither on the date of advertisement nor on the last date of submission of applications or on the date of interview, respondent No. 6 was resident of Gram Panchayat Dhangota and thus, in view of notification dated 29th December, 2005 notifying the availability of seat of PAT in Primary School Dhangota, respondent No.6 was not eligible particularly when candidate from the same Panchayat was available. 16. 16. No doubt, delay caused in deciding the petition would not come in the way for granting any relief to petitioner, but, at the same time, changed circumstances, if any, causing impossibility of compliance of order/direction passed by Court in favour of petitioner may also be relevant at the time of granting the relief. 17. In present case, vacancies of PAT were notified on the basis of Pupil-Teachers ratio and availability of that post was subject to number of students in the school during a particular academic session and the selection of PAT was for one academic year and the employer of PAT was Gram Panchayat and continuation of that person on the said post was subject to continuation of post, based upon students-teachers ratio. Undisputedly, a large number of PAT teachers were continued for considerable long period of number of years and thereafter, have been regularized as JBT teachers after imparting basic training to them necessary to hold JBT post, but, at the same time, PAT teachers cannot claim continuation on the post or regularization of his/her services as a matter of right. 18. Considering the entire facts and circumstances, as discussed supra, the selection/appointment of respondent No.6 against PAT post advertised vide notification dated 29.12.2005 for Government Primary School Dhangota in Gram Panchayat Dhangota is quashed and set aside. 19. In case of availability of post of PAT in reference and petitioner’s position in merit next to respondent No.6, appropriate direction would have been issued to appoint her as Para Teacher/PAT with all consequential benefits w.e.f. 1.4.2006 including seniority and regularization, if any, like others, but, without any actual monetary benefits from 1.4.2006 till actual joining. However, it has been informed by respondent/State that though post may be available but petitioner is not next candidate in merit, therefore, petitioner is not entitled for appointment in place of respondent No.6. 20. Respondent-State/Department is directed to appoint teacher in Government Primary School Dhangota as per requirement and availability of the post, in accordance with law, by taking appropriate steps on or before 30th April, 2023. Petition stands disposed of accordingly including all pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, in aforesaid terms.