IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14668 of 2009 DEVENDRA KUMAR SINGH S/O SRI PARAS NATH SINGH VILL RANI SARISWAN, P.O. KOILA DEVA, P.S MIRGANJ, DISTT- GOPALGANJ VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, GOPALGANJ 3. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, GOPALGANJ 4. THE DISTRICT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL THROUGH ITS MEMBER, P.O+P.S+DISTT- GOPALGANJ 5. MUKHIA , GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ MAGAHIYAN, P.O. CHHITAUNA, P.A. KATEYA, DISTT- GOPALGANJ 6. THE HEAD MASTER, PRIMARY SCHOOL BISUNPURA P.O. CHHITAUNA, P.S. KATEYAN ,DISTT- GOPALGANJ 7. KAMENDRA PRASAD S/O SRI INDRAJEET PRASAD AT+P.O MISHIR BATARAHAN, P.S. SREEPUR, DISTT- GOPALGANJ 8. INDRAJEET KUMAR, AT+P.O.-MISHIR BATARAHAN, P.S – SREEPUR, DISTRICT – GOPALGANJ. ----------- For the Petitioner: Mr. Bipin Bihari Singh, Adv. For Respondent No. 7 & 8 : Mr. Umesh Kumar Mishra, Adv. For the State : Ms. Shalini Raut, AC to G.A.-3 ***** 06. 05.07.2011 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the State as well as Counsel representing Respondent Nos. 7 and 8. An advertisement, inviting application for appointment against 18 vacancies of Panchayat Teachers post in Gram Panchayat Raj Magahiyan was published. Petitioner, Respondent Nos. 7, 8 and several other persons applied for the post. Appointments were done as per reservation roster, starting from serial no. 1049 up to 1064. Roster point 1054 was for the candidate, belonging to Extremely Backward Class Category and roster point no. 1064 was for Backward 2 Class Category Candidate. Petitioner belongs to Backward Class Category and Respondent No. 7 belongs to Extremely Backward Class Category. In this view of the matter, there was no reason for having any clash in between the petitioner and Respondent No. 7, as both, in case of their selection, should have been appointed against two different reservation rosters. Different panels were prepared for candidates belonging to different category. The panel, which was prepared for Extremely Backward Class Category Candidates, the name of Respondent No. 7 is at Serial No. 3. Petitioner’s name was in another category in the panel of reserved Backward Class Category Candidate. Despite the fact that the petitioner was appointed against the post reserved for Backward Class Category at roster point 1064. A complaint was made by Respondent No. 7 before the BDO against the appointment made in Gram Panchayat Magahiyan. Grievance of Respondent No. 7 was that since two persons above him in the panel have not joined, as such he was the only candidate in whose favour appointment letter should have been issued against roster point 1054, reserved for Extremely Backward Class Category Candidate, but the members of Selection Committee, are not accepting his joining. This 3 complaint made by the Respondent No. 7 has disturbed the appointment of petitioner, though his appointment has nothing to do with the appointment of Respondent No. 7. Respondent No. 7 has also filed a Writ Application before the High Court for a direction to accept his joining against the reserved vacancy for Most Backward Class Category Candidate. During the pendency of the Writ Application, he also approached the Appellate Forum and the Appellate Forum, even without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, decided the issue, in which direction was issued to appoint the Respondent No. 7 against roster point 1054, reserved for Most Backward Class Category Candidate. But, so far petitioner, who belongs to another reserved category of Backward Class, appointed against roster point 1064, his appointment has been cancelled. Subsequently, as informed by the petitioner by filing Supplementary Affidavit, the Appellate Authority has reviewed its earlier order and appointment of the petitioner has been restored. I fail to understand how such orders are being passed by the Appellate Form, which is a statutory body. Without considering the facts of the case, without looking into the legal aspect, orders are being passed by 4 the Appellate Forum. The impugned order, which is under challenge in this Writ Application, is the best example of it. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner, who had been appointed against roster point 1064, reserved for Backward Class Candidate will be reinstated on his post with all consequential benefits. So far Respondent No. 7 is concerned, his name being at serial no. 3 in the panel of Most Backward Class Category Candidate, is also entitled for his appointment against vacancy at roster point 1054, considering the fact that two persons, whose names were at serial no. 1 and 2, have not joined the post. The Order must be complied without any further delay. With the above observations / directions, this application is allowed. SKM (Mridula Mishra, J.)