Headnote: Panel longevity is not perpetual; recruitment concludes upon filling posts, and subsequent vacancies require fresh selection processes.

The appellants were candidates for the post of Panchayat/Prakhand Teachers under the 2006 and 2008 Recruitment Rules. Despite being on the merit list, they were not appointed during the initial phases (concluded by 2010)

Years later, between 2012 and 2017, vacancies arose due to resignations or deaths of previously appointed teachers

The appellants approached District Appellate Authorities (DAA) in 2016-17, who directed their appointment against these "future" vacancies

Following their appointment, the State stopped their salaries, leading to writ petitions. Subsequently, the State Appellate Authority (SAA) set aside the DAA orders and the appellants' appointments with retrospective effect

A Single Judge of the High Court upheld the SAA's decision on March 7, 2025, which the appellants challenged in these intra-court appeals

1. Whether the State Appellate Authority (SAA) order passed in the absence of a Chairman (Judicial) suffers from the vice of coram non judice?

2. Whether the delay condoned by the SAA in entertaining the State’s appeals after six years was legal?

3. Whether the life of a merit list from the 2006-2008 selection process can be revived to fill vacancies arising in 2012 and onwards?

4. Whether the retrospective termination and direction for recovery of salary are sustainable?

The court applied the Bihar State Teaching Institutions Teachers and Employees (Disputes Redressal and Appeal) Rules, 2020, specifically Rule 4(iii) regarding the composition of the SAA

Regarding public employment, the court relied on State of Orissa v. Rajkishore Nanda, holding that a merit list is not a "perpetual reservoir" for future vacancies

It applied Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, emphasizing that appointments must follow transparent recruitment processes

For the limitation issue, it cited Collector (Land Acquisition) v. Katiji, prioritizing "substantial justice" over technical delays in matters of public interest

Regarding recovery of wages, it referenced the principles in Rita Mishra v. Director, Primary Education and R. Vishwanatha Pillai v. State of Kerala concerning the validity of appointments versus fraudulent procurement

The Court reasoned that under Rule 4(iii) of the 2020 Rules, the SAA can function with the Chairman (Administrative) alone unless complex legal interpretations are required, thus the SAA order was valid

Regarding the merit list, the Court found that the 2006/2008 recruitment process concluded in 2010; consequently, any vacancies arising after 2012 are "future vacancies" to be governed by the 2012 Rules, which mandated the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET)—a qualification the appellants lacked

The DAAs exceeded their jurisdiction by directing appointments years after the panel's life expired

The Court condoned the State's delay because the appellants had obtained DAA orders without impleading necessary State authorities, making the State's later challenge a matter of public interest

However, the court distinguished the appellants' case from those involving active forgery; since they worked based on a (now-quashed) DAA order rather than personal fraud, equity prevented the recovery of wages already paid for services rendered

The Court dismissed the Letters Patent Appeals, upholding the Single Judge's decision that the appointments were illegal and dehors the rules. (1) The termination of the appellants is upheld but shall take effect from the date of the SAA's order, not retrospectively. (2) The direction for recovery of salaries already disbursed is set aside. (3) Appellants are entitled to salary only for the actual period of service rendered until the SAA order.