IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.18581 of 2009 1. URMILA DEVI W/O SRI LAXMI RAI R/O VILL- KASBE AHAR, P.O. TAJPUR, P.S. TAJPUR, DISTT. SAMASTIPUR Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HUMAN DEVELOPMENT AND RESOURCES DEPTT., GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE DIRECTOR OF PRIMARY EDUCATION BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR DARBHANGA DIVISION, AT DARBHANGA 4. THE DISTRICT TEACHERS EMPLOYMENT APPELLATE AUTHORITY DISTT. SAMASTIPUR 5. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE SAMASTIPUR 6. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION DISTT. SAMASTIPUR 7. THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER DISTT. SAMASTIPUR 8. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER BLOCK TAJPUR, DISTT. SAMASTIPUR 9. THE BLOCK EDUCATION EXTENSION OFFICER BLOCK TAJPUR, DISTT. SAMASTIPUR 10. THE MUKHIA GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ, GAUSPUR, SARSAUNA, BLOCK TAJPUR, DISTT. SAMASTIPUR 11. THE PANCHAYAT SECRETARY GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ, GAUSPUR, SARSAUNA, BLOCK TAJPUR, DISTT. SAMASTIPUR ----------- 3 3.8.2010 An application has been field by private respondent for vacating the stay granted by this Court. A counter affidavit has been filed. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and with their consent , this application is being disposed of at this stage itself. The petitioner by this writ application has challenged the order of District Teacher Employment Appellate Tribunal, Samastipur in Appeal no. 736 of 2009 being order dated 21.10.2009. By the aforesaid order the petitioner’s selection as Primary - 2 - Panchayat Teacher has been held to be illegal and accordingly the petitioner has been terminated . While issuing notice in the admission matter , by order dated 19.3.2010, this Court has stayed the impugned order. An application for vacating the stay order has been filed. A perusal of the impugned order being the order of the tribunal shows that there are mainly two grounds for canceling the petitioner’s selection. The first was that the Higher Secondary mark sheet, as was annexed by the petitioner, showing his eligibility was not from a valid educational institution and the second ground was that Panchayat Samiti had taken a decision not to select the petitioner. Notwithstanding that suo motu the Panchayat Secretary issued appointment letter. On behalf of the petitioner, it is submitted that she had passed matriculation examination from Ravindra Vishra Vidyapith, New Delhi in first division, certificate thereof has been annexed to the writ petition. As to the question whether this organization has been recognized for the purposes of imparting school education, holding examination and granting certificate , learned counsel for the petitioner could not produce any material in that regard. Thus, the credibility of the result itself becomes doubtful. The second and more important aspect of the matter is that the Selection Committee disapproved the selection of the petitioner. Thus, there was no selection of the petitioner. Yet, the Panchayat Secretary issued letter of appointment. In view of the aforesaid fact, the Selection Committee did not select the petitioner. There was no authority of Panchayat Secretary to issue appointment - 3 - letter and as such the appointment letter is void ab initio and confers no right on the petitioner. Thus, the appointment of the petitioner was wrong and cannot be sustained. On behalf of the petitioner, it is submitted that the tribunal did not grant opportunity of hearing to the petitioner . In my view that would not inure to the benefits of the petitioner in the special facts as obtained in the present case. In view of the facts stated above, grant of opportunity, if any, would be a futile formality as has been held in the case of S.L.Kapoor –Vrs- Jamohan & ors. Since reported in AIR 1981 SC 136.There is yet another reason for not interfering. If the orders of the tribunal were to be set aside on this technicality, then it would revive illegal appointment. It is well settled principle that whereby interfering with an order, illegal order would be revived, option on the Court either to set aside both the orders or action or not to interfere at all because by Court interference illegal situation cannot be authenticated . In that view of the matter, I find no merit in this application and the application is dismissed. Stay granted by this Court by order dated 19.3.2010 stands vacated. singh (Navaniti Prasad Singh,J)