IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.1381 of 2010 In (CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE 366/2008) 1. The State Of Bihar, District Magistrate, Vaishali At Hajipur 2. The District Magistrate, Vaishali At Hajipur 3. The Deputy Collector, Establishment, Vaishali At Hajipur 4. The Deputy Collector, Nazarat, Vaishali At Hajipur ---- Respondents/Appellant. Versus 1. Lallan Sah S/O Late Beni Sah R/O Vill. And P.O.- Balwa Kuwari, P.S.- Hajipur Sadar, Distt.- Vaishali At Hajipur --- Petitioner/Respondent Ist Set. 2. Ramnandan Thakur S/O Nagender Thakur R/O Vill.- Panapur Dilwarapur, P.O.- Madhurapur, Distt.- Vaishali At Hajipur, At Present Posted On Class-Iv, Post In The Collectorate Of Vaishali At Hajipur ------ Respondent/Respondent 2nd Set. ---------------------------------- 4. 19.8.2011 Heard Mrs. Archana Prasad, learned Assistant Counsel to Government Pleader No.19 for the appellants, Mr. Jitendra Kumar Rai learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.1, and Mr. Shushant Kumar learned counsel appearing for respondent no.2. 2. The present appeal has been filed under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the High Court of Judicature at Patna against the order dated 17.11.2009, passed in C.W.J.C. No. 366 of 2008 ( Lallan Sah Vrs. 2 The State of Bihar & Ors.). The writ petition had been filed due to non-appointment of the petitioner (respondent no.1 herein) on class IV post in the Collectorate of the district of Vaishali. The ground for moving this Court was that in spite of the petitioner’s name figuring in the panel prepared for such appointment, he was not appointed and a person below in the merit list had been appointed in the extremely backward category. It appears from the pleadings in the writ petition that there was initially a draft panel prepared which was followed by a final list from which appointment was made and in the said list the petitioner did not figure on the ground that as per the basic eligibility requirement for being appointed on class IV post being class 8th pass, the petitioner not fulfilling the same, could not have been appointed. The learned Single Judge after hearing the parties was pleased to direct for reconsideration of the case of the petitioner in the background of the fact that the respondent authorities could not act on the basis of one panel and prepare a second one without scrapping the original panel totally and undertaking a fresh exercise 3 for preparing another panel. The writ petition was disposed off accordingly with a direction for consideration of the case of the petitioner. 3. The respondent State has preferred the present appeal being aggrieved by the direction to consider the case of the writ petitioner for appointment on the ground that he did not possess the very basic eligibility criteria of having passed class 8th and in that view of the matter there was no occasion for the learned Single Judge to direct for consideration of the case. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that in fact such consideration amounted to the authority being forced to appoint the petitioner in terms of such consideration as directed by learned Single Judge. He categorically submits that the stand of the appellants in the writ proceedings was that the petitioner (respondent no.1) was only class 7th pass and thus he has no legal right for appointment as per the Government circular. Learned counsel further submits that in view of the circular, since the petitioner did not possess the basic eligibility criteria and this being the position, the petitioner was unsuited for any 4 appointment, and therefore, the learned Single Judge ought not to have directed for any consideration of his case. 4. Countering the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.1 has drawn our attention to Annexure-6 of his rejoinder to the counter affidavit filed in the writ proceedings which is a photo copy of the transfer certificate issued by the Education Department, Government of Bihar dated 31.12.1973 which clearly certifies that the petitioner was class 8th pass. He submits that said document being in his possession right from the year 1973, he had duly submitted the same before authority when his panel was prepared, and thus the appellants were totally unjustified in contending that he was only class 7th pass. This fact is disputed by the learned counsel for the appellants inasmuch as it is submitted that no such certificate showing respondent no.1 to have passed 8th class was ever submitted before the authority and rather there was proof before them to show that he was only class 7th pass. 5 5. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the materials on record, we feel that the dispute can be narrowed down to the position as to whether the writ petitioner (respondent no.1 herein) was class 8th pass or not. There is some material on record to show that he did possess minimum qualification but the veracity and authenticity of the same is being challenged by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants. In that view of the matter, we deem it appropriate to modify the order of the learned Single Judge to the extent that the appellants shall consider the case of the petitioner in accordance with law after verifying and being satisfied with regard to the authenticity of the certificate, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure 6 to the rejoinder in the writ proceedings. It is needless to say that the said certificate being issued by the Education Department, Government of Bihar, the authorities are in a better position to get the same verified. If it is found that the petitioner did in fact possess the basic eligibility criteria for appointment, consequential orders shall be issued. The said exercise 6 must be completed within a maximum period of eight weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order upon the concerned respondent. It goes without saying that consequential orders upon consideration of the case of the writ petitioner should also be passed by the authority concerned. 6. The Letters Patent Appeal stands disposed off with the aforesaid modification in the order of the learned Single Judge. Vinay/ ( S. K. Katriar, J.) (Ahsanuddin Amanullah,J.)