The court emphasized the importance of following proper procedures in the appointment process and upheld the authority of the Appellate Authority to set aside appointments based on irregularities.

1. With the consent of the learned counsels, the Appeal is heard and decided today.

2. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 29th August 2011 passed by the learned single Judge in above CWJC No. 18202 of 2009, the respondent nos. 9 and 10 have preferred this Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent.

3. The matter at dispute is the appointment of Panchayat Teachers under the Gram Panchayat Raj Sikandarpur, Purnea.

4. It appears that pursuant to the selection process initiated in 2006 for appointment of 8 Panchayat Teachers under Gram Panchayat Raj Sikandarpur, a merit list was prepared and appointments were made. Later on, appointment of two of the appointees was cancelled for they were not qualified for such appointments. The matter at dispute is the appointment on the said two residual posts. It appears that for filling up two posts, a fresh merit list was prepared and 125 candidates were called for counselling. Of the said 125 candidates, six candidates appeared for the counselling and the respondent nos. 9 and 10 were appointed as Panchayat Teachers. Their appointment was challenged by the present appellants and five others before the District Teachers Appointment Appellate Authority, Purnea (hereinafter referred to as “the Appellate Authority”).

5. The Appellate Authority, by its order dated 10th November 2009, upheld the challenge to the appointment of the respondent nos. 9 and 10, the writ petitioners. The Appellate Authority has recorded three irregularities in selecting and making appointment of the respondent nos. 9 and 10. First, although a merit list was already prepared, a fresh merit list was prepared for appointment on the two residual vacancies; second, although it was decided to call for candidates ten times the number of vacancies which comes to 20 candidates, in fact, notice was purportedly issued to 125 candidates under the postal certificate and; third, amongst the 125 candidates who were sent notices under the postal certificate, only six candidates appeared for counselling including the respondent nos. 9 and 10 who were far below in the merit list. An inference of irregularity in sending notice for counselling has been drawn by the Appellate Authority. It is admitted that the appellants were at the top of the merit list whereas the respondent nos. 9 and 10 were far below in the merit list at Sl. Nos. 90 & 113.

6. In view of the aforesaid irregularities committed in appointment of the respondent nos. 9 and 10, the Appellate Authority set aside their appointment and directed the Gram Panchayat to appoint the appellants as Panchayat Teachers. It was also directed that the honorarium paid to the respondent nos. 9 and 10 be recovered from them.

7. Feeling aggrieved, the respondent nos. 9 and 10 challenged the said order in the above CWJC No. 18202 of 2009. The learned single Judge has allowed the writ petition. Therefore, this Appeal.

8. The learned single Judge has affirmed the finding that the writ petitioners were far below in the merit list whereas the appellants were at the top of the merit list. However, according to the learned single Judge, the inference of irregularity drawn by the Appellate Authority was uncalled for. Although 125 candidates were served notice under the postal certificate, only six including the writ petitioners appeared for the counselling. Accordingly, the writ petitioners were appointed against the two residual vacancies.

9. Learned counsel Mr. Y.V. Giri has appeared for the appellants. He has assailed the order of the learned single Judge. He has submitted that the learned single Judge has erred in holding that the Appellate Authority ought to have examined the postal authority to verify whether or not all the 125 candidates were sent notices under the postal certificate. Mr. Giri has submitted that this Court has, in the matter of Chitranjan Kumar Singh Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. [2010 (4) PLJR 183], following the judgment of the Hon’ble Supr