### Panel Validity for Public Employment Terminates Upon Completion of the Recruitment Phase and Cannot Be Revived Post-Law Repeal

The appellants applied for Panchayat/Prakhand Teacher posts under the 2006 and 2008 Rules. Though included in merit lists, they were not initially appointed.

Years later (2012–2017), upon learning of vacancies caused by resignations or deaths, they approached District Appellate Authorities (DAA).

The DAA directed their appointments despite the 2006/2008 recruitment cycles being closed and replaced by the 2012 Rules.

The State, though not a party before the DAA, challenged these orders before the State Appellate Authority (SAA) in 2022-2024.

The SAA set aside the appointments with retrospective effect and ordered recovery of salaries.

A Single Judge of the High Court upheld the SAA's decision, leading to these intra-court appeals.

1. Whether the SAA order passed only by the Chairman (Administrative) in the absence of a Chairman (Judicial) suffers from coram non judice?

2. Whether the SAA was justified in condoning a six-year delay in the State’s appeal?

3. Whether the life of a merit list from 2006–2008 can be revived to fill vacancies arising in 2012 and beyond?

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

Bihar State Teaching Institutions Teachers and Employees (Disputes Redressal and Appeal) Rules, 2020, specifically Rule 4(iii), which allows the State to authorize one Chairman to discharge the duties of another.

Principle from State of Orissa v. Rajkishore Nanda and Ali Hossain Mandal v. West Bengal Board of Primary Education, holding that a select list is not a "perpetual reservoir" and expires once the recruitment cycle ends.

The "substantial justice" doctrine from Collector Land Acquisition v. Katiji, allowing latitude to the State when public interest is at stake due to officer negligence or fraud.

Doctrine regarding salary recovery from Rita Mishra v. Director, Primary Education, noting that recovery is barred if the appointment wasn't based on active forgery by the employee.

The Court reasoned that Rule 4(iii) of the 2020 Rules permits the Administrative Chairman to adjudicate matters unless complex constitutional interpretations are involved.

The Court found the appointments illegal because the 2006/2008 merit lists had outlived their utility; vacancies arising from 2012 onwards constitute "future vacancies" that must be filled under the 2012 Rules, which require passing the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET).

The Court condoned the State's delay because the appellants strategically omitted the State as a party before the DAA to secure favorable orders, constituting a "procedural bypass" and "fraud on the system".

The Court observed that since the appellants were appointed via a DAA judicial order rather than personal forgery, they were entitled to keep salaries for periods of actual service.

The Court set aside the directions for retrospective termination and salary recovery; termination shall take effect from the date of the SAA’s order, and any salary paid for actual services rendered shall not be recovered.