IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3956 of 2010 1. Vakil Shah S/O Ram Adhar Shah R/O Vill.- Chauri, P.S. + Block - Chand, Distt.- Kaimur At Bhabhua Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Principal Secretary Human Resources Development Department, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna 3. The Director, Primary Education Govt. Of Bihar, Patna 4. The District Magistrate Kaimur at Bhabhua 5. The District Teacher Appointment Appellate Authority, Distt.- Kaimur At Bhabhua Through Its Chairman 6. The Member District Teacher Appointment Appellate Authority, Distt.- Kaimur At Bhabhua 7. The District Superintendent Of Education Distt.- Kaimur At Bhabhua 8. The Block Development Officer Block- Mohania, Distt.- Kaimur At Bhabhua 9. The Block Education Extension Officer Block- Mohania, Distt.- Kaimur At Bhabhua 10. The Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Raj Ameth Block + P.S. Mohania, Distt.- Kaimur At Bhabhua 11. The Panchayat Secretary Gram Panchayat Raj Ameth, Block + P.S.- Mohania, Distt.- Kaimur At Bhabhua 12. Jai Prakash Singh S/O Rajeshwar Singh R/O Vill.- Dewaria, P.S. + Block - Mohania, Distt.- Kaimur At Bhabhua ---------------------------------- 5 20.12.2011 An order of the Appellate Authority dated 23.01.2010, as contained in Annexure-1, is under challenge in this case. By this order, the appeal of the respondent no.12 against the appointment of the petitioner as Panchayat Teacher has been allowed. The Appellate Authority has found that the petitioner had applied for selection and appointment as Panchayat 2 Teacher under the Handicapped quota. He had produced certificate of some doctor along with his application. Counselling was held on 3rd, 4th, 5th, 13th and 14th October. However, at the time of his counselling, petitioner had not produced his certificate issued by the Medical Board under the Chairmanship of Civil Surgeon in respect of his disability. Such certificate was produced by him only after counselling on 17.10.2006. Hence legally his case could not be considered in the category of Handicapped candidates as the required certificate from the Medical Board had not been produced by him at the time of his counselling. Still the Employment Agency selected and appointed him on the basis of certificate of the Board issued later on. This procedure of the Employment Agency has been held as not in accordance with law. In the circumstances, the Appellate Authority has directed for appointment of respondent no.12 and has directed for cancellation of appointment of the petitioner. Learned Senior Counsel for the 3 petitioner submits that since the certificate of Medical Board was not available to the petitioner as no Medical Board had been held, he had applied to the Chairman/Secretary of the Employment Agency for grant of one week time for producing such certificate. On this, time was allowed to him at the time of counselling. In support of this submission an application of the petitioner dated 10.10.2006 has been annexed as Annexure-3. This application shows that copy of the same was only received by the Panchayat Secretary. There is no order or permission recorded in the application from which it could appear that the Chairman of the Employment Agency had allowed to the petitioner to produce such certificate. Since the petitioner was not having such certificate at the time of counselling, his candidature could not be considered on that date under the Handicapped quota. Hence production of such certificate by the petitioner later on was of no benefit to him. In the circumstances, this Court 4 does not find any error in the order of the Appellate Authority and, therefore, does not find any merit in the writ application and the same is dismissed. The interim order passed on 02.04.2010 shall stand vacated and the respondent nos. 10 and 11 are directed to implement the order of the Appellate Authority. Arvind/ ( J.N. Singh, J.)