The main legal point established in the judgment is the illegality committed by the Selection Committee in denying appointment to the writ petitioner and accommodating the appellant, as well as the principle that a person entering service through an illegal manner cannot claim rightful dues.

JUDGMENT :

Rajiv Roy, J.

The appellant-respondent no.14 is aggrieved by the order dated 05.07.2022 passed by Hon’ble Single Judge (Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma) in C.W.J.C. No.658 of 2018 by which the writ petition was allowed.

2. The matrix of facts giving rise to the present appeal is/are as follows.

3. Under Bihar Primary Teachers Appointment Rules, 2006 (henceforth for short ‘the Rules’) an advertisement was issued by the Selection Committee of Gram Panchayat Raj, Budhwara under Govindpur Block in the district of Nalanda inviting applications for the post of Panchayat Teachers.

4. The writ petitioner applied pursuant to it, appeared, submitted documents, the same were verified and accordingly, the merit list was prepared in which he found himself at Serial No.12 under backward class category. A waiting list was also prepared in which Santosh Kumar (the appellant herein) and Nand Kumar were also listed at Serial No.2 & 3.

(Annexure-1 to the writ petition)

5. Sidetracking the aforementioned merit list, the Selection Committee picked up names of the appellant herein and Nand Kumar from the wait list, were offered employment and accordingly, they joined. It is said that subsequently Nand Kumar left the job.

6. Aggrieved by non-offering of appointment letter, writ petitioner Prabhat Kumar preferred C.W.J.C. No.2575/2008 which was disposed of on 25.08.2002 with a direction to file representation.

(Annexure-2 to the writ petition)

7. Accordingly, the writ petitioner preferred representation before the Block Development Officer, Govindpur (henceforth for short ‘the BDO’) who having found merit in his case gave direction vide its order dated 04.07.2009 for cancellation of employment of Santosh Kumar and Nand Kumar (Annexure-4 to the writ petition). This order was passed by ‘the B.D.O.’ only after the writ petitioner preferred contempt petition vide M.J.C. No.1902 of 2009.

8. Even though the order of appointment of the appellant herein was cancelled, however since no relief was granted to the writ petitioner, he preferred another writ petition vide C.W.J.C. No.4143/2011. The same was disposed of on 15.04.2014 holding that after analyzing ‘the Rules’ and appointment of Appellate Authority, the role of ‘the B.D.O.’ had seized. The Court as such directed the writ petitioner to approach the District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority, Nawada (henceforth for short ‘the District Authority’).

9. Accordingly, the writ petitioner preferred petition vide Appeal No.39/2014 before ‘the District Authority’, which came to be rejected on 25.04.2015.

(Annexure-6 to the writ petition)

10. Aggrieved, the writ petitioner once again moved this Court vide C.W.J.C. No.8970/2015 which was disposed of on 08.03.2017 holding that against the order passed by ‘the District Authority’ the petitioner should approach the State Appellate Authority, Bihar (henceforth for short ‘the State Authority)for the redressal of his grievance.

(Annexure-7 to the writ petition)

11. Thereafter, the writ petitioner preferred Appeal No.90 of 2017 before ‘the State Authority’. It was heard and dismissed on 06.11.2017 holding that there is no error in the order of ‘the District Authority’ and as such the appeal is disallowed.

(Annexure-8 to the writ petition)

12. Against the said order of ‘the State Authority’, the writ petitioner preferred CWJC No.658/2018. The matter was taken up by the Hon’ble Single Judge and vide an order dated 05.07.2022 the said writ petition was allowed holding as follows :

“8. Learned counsel appearing for the State fairly concedes that the petitioner was having higher merit than the respondents and also does not deny the fact that consent is obtained after issuance of the employment letter. Candidates from the waiting list can be only issued employment letter after the candidates from the main list do not join. This is the procedure of selection being followed at all places. In the present case, this Court notices that the petitioner was never offered an