IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.20240 of 2010 1. NARENDRA KUMAR MISHRA son of Sri Sudhist Mishra, resident of village – Bhitauli, P.O. Kumhti, District – Siwan. 2. Rajiv Nayan Tiwari, son of Sri Mithilesh Tiwari, resident of village –Sonbarsa, P.O. Rampur Sarya, District – Siwan. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through the District Magistrate, Siwan. 2. The District Magistrate, Siwan. 3. The Deputy Development Commissioner, Siwan. 4. The District Education Officer, Siwan. 5. The District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority, Siwan. 6. The Employment/Panel Committee through its Chairman, Zila Parishad, Siwan. 7. The Chairman, Zila Parishad, Siwan. ----------- 05. 19.04.2011 Annexure-1 is not under challenge in the present writ application as such. Prayer is that the order passed by the District Teachers Employment Appellant Authority, Siwan should be implemented and a direction may be given to the respondents to enforce the order. This Court has reluctance to pass such an order looking at the nature of the direction which has been issued by the appellate authority, in the sense that appellate authority can at best decide whether appointment was made legally or illegally or whether a person has derived benefit of appointment contrary to law. But giving a mandatory direction for appointment of a person and reporting to the appellate authority, in the opinion of this Court, is beyond his jurisdiction. Even the High Court has reluctance to pass such an order where from the 2 tribunal has got such an authority is not understood by this Court. At best there should have been a direction for consideration. A counter affidavit on behalf of the State has been filed in which they have stated that enforcement of that order would amount to perpetuating an illegal order. This is so since roaster clearance with regard to the vacancies, existing in the district of Siwan has not been followed. That is the reason why appointments of these petitioners could not be made at the relevant time. However, the tribunal by recording that nobody has appeared for the respondents, has gone ahead by making a declaration in favour of the petitioners with a direction for their appointment. The order passed by the appellate authority is quashed. Matter is remitted back for re-hearing, in the sense that now the respondents specially respondent No.4 shall ensure that he will appear before the appellate authority and assist the appellate authority in coming to a fair adjudication by producing all the relevant materials in this regard. The tribunal is hereby cautioned that in future they should be circumspect in passing any order, mandatory in nature of appointment. They can decide the issue but they can only give direction to consider and not 3 give direction for appointment in mandatory terms. The writ application stands disposed of with a direction that an early adjudication of the matter ought to be made. rkp ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)