JUDGMENT :

Anjana Mishra, J.

Heard Ms. Surya Nilambari, learned counsel for the appellant, Shri P.K. Jaipuriyar, learned counsel for respondent No.11 and Shri Ashutosh Ranjan Pandey, learned A.A.G.-15 for the State of Bihar and perused the pleadings as well as the written submissions filed by the parties.

2. The present Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the appellant-Gunjan Kumari challenging the judgment and order dated 19.04.2018 passed in C.W.J.C. No.8187 of 2017 (Renu Kumari vs. The State of Bihar & others), wherein the appellant was arrayed as respondent No.11. The appellant had contested a series of litigations and finally succeeded in getting appointed as a Block Panchayat Teacher in the district of Katihar. Since her appointment was upset by the impugned judgment, the appellant seeks to prefer the present appeal.

3. It is important to mention here that the writ petitioner (Respondent No.11) had filed CWJC No.8187 of 2017 seeking to quash an order dated 25.05.2017 passed by the State Appellate Authority in Appeal Case No.3 of 2016 as well as the orders dated 15.07.2016 and 30.12.2015 passed by the District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority (hereinafter referred to as `the District Appellate Authority’) in Appeal Case No.3 of 2016 and Appeal Case No.34 of 2014 (Annexures 1, 2 and 3 respectively) and for allowing the writ petitioner, namely, Renu Kumari (Respondent No.11) to continue on the post of Block Teacher at Middle School, Tikkapatti, Samaili in the district of Katihar. In the said writ application, Renu Kumari has impleaded Kumari Anita as respondent No.10 and the appellant Gunjan Kumari as respondent No.11.

4. Since the present case has a long history of litigation, it would be appropriate to present the factual matrix of the series of events which ultimately culminated in the present litigation.

(i) Pursuant to an advertisement published in the year 2006 for appointment of Panchayat Teachers as per the provisions of Bihar Panchayat Teachers (Employment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2006, including two posts reserved for Extremely Backward (Female) in the Gram Panchayat, Chandpur West, Block-Samaili, District-Katihar, the appellant-Gunjan Kumari (respondent No.11 in the writ petition), Kumari Anita (respondent No.10) and Renu Kumari (writ petitioner/respondent No.11 in the L.P.A.) applied for the said posts under the EBC (Female) Category-Untrained.

(ii) A merit list of EBC (F) Untrained was prepared, according to which, the appellant Gunjan Kumari was placed at Serial No.8 with 60.66% , that of Kumari Anita (Respondent No.10) was placed at Serial No.13 with 59% and Renu Kumari (writ petitioner/respondent No.11 in L.P.A.) was placed at Serial No.16 with 56.66%. Thus, the relative merit came to be noticed in Annexure D and is fully admitted by all the parties.

(iii) Despite being on the top of the merit list amongst EBC(F) Untrained candidates, the appellant was not appointed on 5th 6th the ground that she had not participated in the and counselling held on 11.3.2007/12.03.2007 and 16.03.2007/17.03.2007. However, Kumari Anita (respondent No.10) and Renu Kumari (writ petitioner/respondent No.11 in LPA) were appointed and appointment letters were issued on 24.03.2007 to Kumari Anita and Renu Kumari on the basis of the th counselling held on 21.03.2007.

(iv) The appellant herein Gunjan Kumari being aggrieved by her non-selection filed Misc. Appeal No.04 of 2007 before the B.D.O., Sameili, who passed an order dated 06.09.2007 recording that the appointments made through the 7th and 8th panels were illegal because no appointments were made from the 5th and th panels. Thus, pursuant to the aforementioned order, the Panchayat Secretary, vide order dated 02.02.2008, cancelled the appointment of Kumari Anita (respondent No.10).

(v) The appellant Gunjan Kumari preferred Appeal Case No.1284 of 2009 before the Di