(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH)

Re.:-I. A. No 5040 of 2014

Interlocutory Application No.5040 of 2014 has been filed for condoning the delay in filing this appeal.

For the reasons stated in this interlocutory application, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned.

Accordingly, I.A. No.5040 of 2014 stands disposed of.

The appellant was respondent no.7 in the writ proceeding. He challenges the judgment and order dated 07.03.2014 passed in C.W.J.C. No.956 of 2013. The said writ petition was filed by the writ petitioner, who is respondent no.7 herein, challenging the order dated 21.09.2012 passed by the District Teacher’s Appointment Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal), which directed for terminating the service of the writ petitioner and appointing the respondent no.7/appellant instead, on the ground, that the appellant had higher merit than the writ petitioner.

As the private contesting respondent in this appeal, who was the writ petitioner, being respondent no.7 herein, has appeared, with consent of parties, we have taken up this matter and heard it for final disposal at this stage itself.

In the year 2006, the State Government formed the Panchayat Teachers (Recruitment of Service Conditions) Rules, 2006. Pursuant to the aforesaid rules, advertisements were issued for recruitment of panchayat teachers wherein minimum educational qualification was Intermediate. The writ petitioner/respondent no.7 herein and the appellant, apart from large number of persons applied. The writ petitioner was selected and appointed, which advertisement was done in the year, 2007 itself, when the rules were framed originally. Rule-18 provides that any dispute in relation to the appointment process would be dealt with and enquired by the Block Development Officer (B.D.O.) having jurisdiction in the matter. Once the appointments were so made, which is commonly referred to as the appointments of panchayat teachers in the first phase, the vacancies were calculated phase-wise. The second phase advertisements were issued for appointment. This time, gaining from the past experience and seeing the number of litigations that was generated, the State constituted the Tribunal to replace the B.D.O. under Rule 18 of the Rules aforesaid. We have noticed this fact because we are in agreement with the learned Single Judge that essentially the B.D.O. was the appellate authority in respect of appointments made in the first phase. It was the Tribunal from second phase onwards, which exercised the jurisdiction, and, to which the cases pending before B.D.O stood transferred.

As the writ petitioner was selected and the appellant herein having not been selected, appellant submits that he had made representation before the B.D.O. raising his grievance. Nothing was done. He then represented to the Collector of the District. Nothing was done. Ultimately, he moved in the year 2011 before the Chief Minister’s Janta Darbar from where instructions were sent to the Collector, who then forwarded the grievance of the appellant to the Tribunal. Thus, the appellant moved the Tribunal effectively for the first time for the redressal of his grievance in the year 2011, with regard to the appointment of the writ petitioner in the year 2007, in the first phase of appointments. There is nothing on record to show and substantiate that the appellant had moved the B.D.O., while the B.D.O. was the appellate authority.

It is not in dispute that the matter was then heard by the Tribunal, upon notice to the writ petitioner, on several days and, ultimately, orders were reserved but before final order could be passed the officer retired. The new officer was then appointed and he, without any notice to any party, finding that the matter had been finally heard by his predecessor, passed the order upholding the contention of the appellant and directed that the service of the writ petitioner be terminated and instead the appellant be appointed.

Being agg