Anil Kumar Sinha, J.—The petitioner has prayed for a direction to the respondent authorities to allow the petitioner to continue on the post of Panchayat Teacher on which he was working and to hold that the appointment of the petitioner converted from Panchayat Shiksha Mitra to Panchayat Teacher cannot be interfered in view of the Full Bench decision of this Court, in the case of Kalpana Rani vs. The State of Bihar, reported in 2014 (2) PLJR 665

[: 2014 (3) BLJ 91 (F.B.)]. The petitioner has further prayed for holding the appointment of respondent no. 10 on the post of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra/Panchayat Teacher after coming into force of Bihar Panchayat Teachers (Employment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2006 (herein after referred to as the ‘2006 Rules’) as illegal and void ab initio. Further prayer of the petitioner is for quashing of the decision of the Selection Committee, dated 25.11.2013 and also for quashing the order issued by the Panchayat Secretary, vide letter no. 210, dated 30.11.2013, whereby the petitioner was communicated that Selection Committee has taken a decision that the appointment of the petitioner cannot be done.

2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that in the year 2004-05, the vacancies for appointment on the post of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra in the Panchayat Raj Rajwara Bharti, under Meenapur Block, in the district of Muzaffarpur, was advertised and pursuant thereto, the petitioner applied for appointment as Panchayat Shiksha Mitra. The petitioner was selected along with seven other candidates as Panchayat Shiksha Mitra in the year 2005, vide letter, dated 27.05.2005. The petitioner joined the post of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra and after completion of 11 months, his services, as Panchayat Shiksha Mitra, was renewed further from 01.06.2006 to 30.05.2007.

3. In the mean while, the 2006 Rules came into existence with effect from 01.07.2006 and by virtue of the 2006 Rules, the Panchayat Shiksha Mitra was converted into Panchayat Teacher and accordingly the petitioner became Panchayat Teacher after 01.07.2006.

4. While the petitioner was working and discharging his duties as Panchayat Teacher, respondent no. 10 filed a complaint before the District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur, alleging therein that he was selected as Panchayat Shiksha Mitra, but the respondent authorities did not appoint him on the said post. The District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur, vide his order, dated 26.12.2007 cancelled the entire selection without hearing the petitioner, although the District Magistrate, after coming into force of the 2006 Rules, had no jurisdiction to pass such orders.

5. The complaint filed by the respondent no. 10 was not directly against the petitioner as he was having no grievance against the petitioner and the respondent no. 10 had merely stated that although he was selected as Panchayat Shiksha Mitra in the year 2005, he was not given appointment letter. Further, this complaint was not filed earlier in the year 2005-06 and after conversion of the post of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra into Panchayat Teacher in the year 2007, this complaint has been filed for the first time.

6. The respondent no. 10 filed a case before the District Appellate Authority, Muzaffarpur, bearing Case No. 149 of 2010 and the Tribunal, vide order, dated 15.07.2011, in a mechanical manner, held that the petitioner was wrongly appointed in place of respondent no. 10.

7. The petitioner challenged the order, dated 15.07.2011, passed by the Tribunal before this Court, in CWJC No. 22411 of 2011, in which while issuing notice to the private respondent, this Court, vide its order, dated 16.12.2011, stayed the operation of the order of the Tribunal till further orders.

8. The notice issued by this Court in the aforesaid writ application was received by respondent no. 10 on 20.01.2012 and after coming to know that the operation of the order of the Tribunal has been stayed by this Court, the respondent no. 10, by concealing the said order, filed a writ application