The court emphasized the importance of rightful appointments and the proper interpretation of court orders, highlighting the consequences of suppressing facts in legal proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioner by way of this writ petition prays for setting aside the order dated 30th March 2022 passed by the State Appellate Authority Patna, whereby the appeal preferred by respondent no. 13 was allowed with directions to the Panchayat Secretary to remove the petitioner from his service within a period of fortnight and reinstate respondent no. 13 at his place.

2. Further prayer has been made to pay the arrears of salary for the period the petitioner has been performing his duties on the post of Panchayat Teacher and also for the period from 01.06.2013 to 26.03.2017 during which he was forced to remain out of service.

3. The petitioner has stated that a notification was issued on 1st July 2006 for appointment of Panchayat/Block Teachers in different schools of the State. The applications were invited by respective appointing authorities of which Mukhiya of the concerned Gram Panchayat was the Chairman and the Panchayat Secretary was a Member Secretary. The petitioner applied for the post of Panchayat Teacher for Gram Panchayat Raj Keyal, Block-Karpi, District Arwal as a BC category candidate on 26.08.2006. The petitioner asserts that the respondent no. 13 had not applied for the said Panchayat and date of counselling was fixed on 08.10.2006. On the said date petitioner appeared along with others. However, respondent no. 13 did not appear for counselling as he had not applied.

4. It is further stated that father of respondent no. 13 was Headmaster of upgraded Middle-School, Andhra Chak, Karpi District Arwal who managed to get him appointed in the same school, where he was posted as Headmaster.

5. A complaint was filed by the Supervisor-cum-Member Teacher to the B.D.O., Karpi about the irregularities in preparation of the panel but no action was taken. As the appointment of respondent no. 13 was illegal, petitioner also filed a complaint to the B.D.O. who was the Appellate Authority under Rule 18 of the Bihar Panchayat Elementary Teacher (Employment and Service Condition) Rules 2006. He did not decide the appeal and therefore the petitioner preferred a representation to the D.M. Arwal on 28th July 2007 who remanded the matter back to the B.D.O. directing him to decide the dispute. The B.D.O. kept the complaint pending and in the meanwhile the Rules of 2006 were amended in 2008 and the power of Appellate Authority was wrested from B.D.O. to the District Teacher Appointment Appellate Authority and accordingly the petitioner appeal was transferred to the District Appellate Authority to register as Appeal no. 01/2008-09.

6. The Appellate Authority passed an order on 08.02.2010 holding the appointment of respondent no. 13 as bad in law and suffering from malice on facts as the respondents father had been instrumental in getting him appointed and was guilty of misusing the power vested in him. Appointment of respondent no. 13 was set aside with further direction to consider the petitioner for appointment on the post. Accordingly orders were issued by the D.M. Arwal on 11.03.2010 and the petitioners joining was accepted on 22.03.2010 by the Headmaster of the School and since then he was performing his duties.

7. Respondent no. 13 preferred a writ petition before this Court which was registered at C.W.J.C. No.4612/2010. The High Court vide its judgment dated 11.04.2013 dismissed the writ petition but further set aside the directions of the District Appellate Authority whereby it directed for appointment of the petitioner on the post.

8. The petitioner preferred an L.P.A. No.-602/2013 challenging the order of the Single Judge. The Division Bench vide its judgment dated 27.01.2014 decided the L.P.A. preferred by the petitioner as well as by the respondent no. 13 and set aside the order of the District Appellate Authority/ Tribunal dated 08.02.2010 as well as the order of the Single Judge dated 11.04.2013 and remanded the matter back to the Tribunal to decide the same afresh.

9. The petitioner preferred an Appeal No. 24 of 2014 b