IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.18376 of 2011 Madhumita Kumari D/o Kuldeep Mehta, resident of Village at Barahi, P.S.- Sonwarsha, District- Saharsa--------------------------------------------petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar , through its Principal Secretary Human Resources Department, Government of Bihar, Patna 2. The Director Primary Education, Government of Bihar, Patna 3. The District Education Officer, Saharsa 4. The District Teacher Appointment Appellate Authority, Saharsa 5. The Block Development Officer, Block-Sonbarsa East, District- Saharsa 6. The Block Education Officer, Sonbarsa East, Block Sonbarsa East, District- Saharsa 7. The Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Raj Kashnagar, Block- Sonbarsa East, District-Saharsa 8. The Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Raj, Kashnagar, Block-Sonbarsa East, District- Saharsa 9. Rupa Kumari D/o Nawal Kishore Nawal R/o Vill.- Kashnagar P.O. - Pariya, P.S. -Sonbarsa, Block- Sonbarsa East, District- Saharsa--- respondents ----------- For the petitioner :Mr.Rajendra Pd.Singh, Sr.Advocate For the State :Mr.Rajeev Kumar Sinha, AC to AAG 15 ------ 2. 15.11.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner seeks quashing of the Memo dated 15.12.2007 issued by the Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat, Kashnagar, Block Sonbarsa, District Saharsa by which the petitioner has been informed that she has been removed from the post of Panchayat Teacher on the ground that the respondent No.9 Rupa Kumari is having higher marks than her and further for quashing the letter dated 17.3.2009 issued by the then District Superintendent 2 of Education, Saharsa by which he has directed the Headmaster, Primary School, Bannivasa, Kashnagar Panchayat, Block Sonbarsa East to accept the joining of the respondent No.9 on the post of Panchayat Teacher on the ground that the petitioner has been removed from the said post by the letter dated 15.12.2007 and also for quashing the order dated 26.8.2011 passed in Appeal Case No. 655 of 2009 by the District Teacher Employment Appellate Authority, Saharsa rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner. The facts as per the records of the case are that the appointment process of Primary Teacher was taken up in Gram Panchayat Kashnagar during the year 2006-07 in which merit list was prepared and in the said list respondent No.9 Rupa Kumari was at Serial No.119 having merit marks of 62%, whereas the petitioner was at Serial No.193 having marks of 58.33%. On the post reserved for Backward Class(Female) one Punam Prabha was appointed. Subsequently the said Punam Prabha resigned her post on 7.10.2007. On 10.11.2007 the Appointment Committee of the Panchayat met for filling up the vacancy and overlooking the higher position of the respondent No.9 3 among Backward Class(Female) category had appointed the petitioner who though belongs to the said category was lower down in the merit list. It is stated that the Appointment Committee was misled by the statement of the then Panchayat Secretary in the matter. Subsequently the error was discovered on the complaint made by the respondent No.9 and the Appointment Committee met again on 25.11.2007 and cancelled the earlier resolution passed on 17.11.2007 appointing the petitioner and directed the appointment of the respondent No.9. However, it appears that the Headmaster of the said school did not accept the joining of the respondent No.9 on which she complained before the District Superintendent of Education, who had issued the impugned order dated 17.3.2009 to the Headmaster of the concerned school referring to the letter dated 15.12.2007 issued by the Panchayat Secretary to the petitioner informing her about the cancellation of her appointment. Aggrieved by the same the petitioner approached the District Teacher Employment Appellate Authority, which by the impugned order dated 26.8.2011 has rejected the appeal. 4 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner having been appointed on 17.11.2007 by the Appointment Committee her appointment could not have been subsequently cancelled without complying with the principles of natural justice as no notice to show cause/ file explanation was issued before her appointment has been cancelled and the entire action of the respondent authorities is fit to be set aside. It is the further stand of learned counsel that the impugned order dated 15.12.2007 issued by the Panchayat Secretary was never communicated to the petitioner nor the subsequent letter dated 17.3.2009 was communicated to her and then the entire action of the authorities is arbitrary in violation of the principles of natural justice. Learned counsel also assails the findings of the Appellate Authority to the contrary. It is submitted that the Appellate Authority was completely wrong in coming to the conclusion that the appeal was barred by time having not been filed within 30 days as there is no limitation prescribed in the Bihar Panchayat Primary Teacher(Appointment and Service Condition) Rules, 2006. 5 Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, submits that the Appellate Authority has rightly considered the issues in the light of the facts of the case and the order does not require any interference. On a consideration of the entire facts and circumstances, this Court does not find any force in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner. It is true that in its meeting dated 17.11.2007 the Appointment Committee of the Gram Panchayat had selected the petitioner under the impression that she was at Serial No. 1 in the merit list and, accordingly, the appointment letter dated 19.11.2007 was issued in her favour but immediately thereafter the error was realized on the basis of the representation filed by the respondent No.9 and in its meeting dated 25.11.2007 the same was rectified and the appointment of the petitioner was cancelled. It is evident from the materials on the record that the Appointment Committee in its said meeting considered the cases of all the candidates who had participated in the counseling held from 10.2.2007 to 14.2.2007 and decided to issue the appointment letter to the respondent No.9 on the ground that she had the highest marks among the Backward Class 6 (Female) category and was accordingly entitled to be appointed. Thus the action of the respondent authorities of the Gram Panchayat cannot be considered arbitrary or discriminatory, rather it was the rectification of an error committed by them by the earlier resolution appointing the petitioner. It is true that normally once a person has been appointed and the same is sought to be cancelled then she should be given an opportunity of hearing while taking decision in the matter. However, in the present matter the petitioner cannot be permitted to invoke the principles of natural justice as a mere formality to be complied without showing as to what prejudice has been caused to her by non-compliance of the said principles. It is not the case of the petitioner that the aforesaid facts are incorrect and that she had higher marks and higher position in the merit list than the respondent No.9. In that situation the findings recorded by the Appellate Authority that the respondent No.9 was entitled to the appointment, whereas the petitioner had been wrongly given the appointment letter contrary to the materials before the Appointment Committee, are conclusive findings of fact. Thus, on the 7 merits of the matter the findings and conclusions of the Appellate Authority cannot be assailed. In so far as the question of petitioner being unaware of the letter dated 15.12.2007 issued by the Panchayat Secretary pursuant to the decision dated 25.11.2007 of the Appointment Committee of the Gram Panchayat is concerned, the Appellate Authority has already come to the conclusion that the order has been duly received by the petitioner. The Appellate Authority is the last forum of fact and this Court would not normally interfere with the findings recorded by it unless the same is found to be perverse. Learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to show that the said finding is perverse although it is alleged that her signature has been forged showing receipt in the peon book. This Court does not consider it appropriate to look into any such contention. This Court, however, accepts the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the finding recorded by the Appellate Authority regarding the appeal being barred by time as having not been filed within 30 days is contrary to law as there is no such provision in the 2006 Rules fixing any limitation for filing of any appeal. The 8 only thing to be considered is whether an appeal ought not to be heard on the ground of delay and laches. To that extent the finding of the Appellate Authority is not correct. However, the aforesaid finding does not affect the merits of the matter which has been clearly enumerated by the Appellate Authority in its order. Thus, in the light of the aforesaid discussions, this Court does not find any merit in the writ application. It is, accordingly, dismissed with the aforesaid observations. (Ramesh Kumar Datta,J.) Spal/