The appellants produced their appeal with the photocopies of their selection letter as well as the order of the Hon'ble High Court. The original copy of that list is not available and the appellants were directed to give an affidavit regarding where the original copy of their list is. Renu Kumari, in her affidavit submitted that she had received the photocopy of the original from Anant Kumar, the then Block Education Officer. Since the appellants had come to the Authority with their selection letter, in the hearing of Appeal No. 65/2014 by the Authority, original copy was demanded for verification since the Niyojan (Employment) Unit had the photocopies of three 3 types of list. Upon the perusal of the list produced by Anant Kumar, it appears that the names of appellants are not there. Taking it seriously, the Block Education Officer and Secretary were directed to explain the situations in which such discrepancies occurred in the scanned photostat but it is indisputable that there is no original copy of the list from which the appellants were selected and this discrepancy is related to the signature of the same person on the same date on the photostat of these three lists. Till now, the photostat which bears the original ink signature of the those persons has been considered admissible by the Authority. In this condition, the present appeal does not deserve consideration because there is no original copy of the photocopy of the merit list. This is a matter of investigation and revelation that without merit list, under what circumstances, selection letters were issued and for the same, orders have been issued by the Authority to initiate legal proceedings. Secretary, Niyojan (Employment) Unit and Block Education Officer are directed to apprise the
