Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. In CWJC No. 2588 of 2012, the petitioner Amarnath Keshari has assailed the impugned order passed by the District Teacher Employment Appellate Tribunal, Araria (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’) dated 29.01.2012 passed in case No. 18 of 2009, whereas in the connected CWJC No. 14810 of 2013 the petitioner Narendra Kumar Jha has sought a direction for his appointment on the basis of the said order of the Tribunal which has been impugned by the petitioner Amarnath Keshari in CWJC No. 2588 of 2012.

3. Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner Amarnath Keshari, has submitted that the order of the Tribunal suffers from two apparent errors, namely that it did not decide the main question as with regard to the complaint of the petitioner Narendra Kumar Jha being not maintainable before the Tribunal in view of rejection of his earlier complaint by the prescribed authority namely B.D.O., Farbisganj vide his order dated 20.5.2008. Secondly according to him, the Tribunal ought to have examined the records relating to selection and appointment of the post of Panchayat Teacher in question from which it could have become c