IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14778 of 2008 Arbind Kumar Pandey, @ s/o Jagdish Pandey, Resident of Village Dilwarpur, P.S. Kesharia, District East Champaran (Motihari)…………Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. The Principal Secretary, Human Resources Department, Bihar, Patna. 3. The Divisional Commissioner, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur. 4. The District Magistrate, East Champaran, Motihari. 5. The District Superintendent of Education, East Champaran, Motihari. 6. The Regional Development Officer, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur. 7. The Block Development Officer, Kalyanpur, East Champaran, Motihari. 8. The Block Education Extension Officer, Kalyanpur, East Champaran, Motihari. 9. The Mukhiya, Dilwarpur Panchayat P.S. Kesharia, District East Champaran. 10. The Panchayat Secretary, Dilwarpur Panchayat P.S. Kesharia, District East Champaran. 11. Jagat Narayan Singh, S/o Ram Chandra Singh, Resident of Village Dilwarpur P.S. Kesharia, District East Champaran, Motihari………Respondents ------- 2 17.11.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the State. The case of the petitioner is that though he was 70% handicapped, he was not appointed as Panchayat Teacher under the said category and a person, who had less percentage of handicapped, was appointed. From the documents annexed with the writ application it appears that a representation of the petitioner sent to 2 the Divisional Commissioner as contained in Annexure-11 shows that petitioner has pointed out that respondent no.11 had hardly any disability to come under the category of handicapped candidate. However, the complaint of petitioner was rejected by the Block Development Officer, Kalayanpur through letter no.104 dated 26.02.2008 addressed to the Collector, East Champaran at Motihari on the ground that comparative disability could not be a ground for selection of lesser meritorious candidates. This principle is sound and in accordance with law. But the question whether appointed candidate i.e. respondent no.11 did come under the category of physically challenged candidate by having 40% disability is a question of fact. In the circumstances, since the Block Development Officer is no longer an authority under the law to consider the matter afresh, this Court grants liberty to the petitioner to file a representation before the statutory Appellate Authority challenging percentage of disability of respondent no.11. If he does so within four 3 weeks from today, the Appellate Authority shall direct respondent no.11 as well as petitioner to be physically present before it in person, and shall be satisfied itself with regard to percentage of disability of both persons. If necessary, it shall ask for a medical opinion with regard to their respective percentage of disability and thereafter shall decide the matter with regard to validity of appointment of respondent no.11 and entitlement of petitioner for his appointment in accordance with law. It is made clear that if the Appellate Authority is itself satisfied that respondent no.11 was disabled by 40 % or above or it gets a medical report which also shows that respondent 11 is disabled by 40% or above, it shall not interfere with the appointment of respondent no.11. If the Appellate Authority is satisfied that respondent no.11 could not be considered as having minimum 40% disability, it will be at liberty to hold appointment of respondent no.11 as bad and then it shall be at liberty to pass 4 consequential orders in accordance with law. The Appellate Authority must complete this exercise within three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The writ application is disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. BT (J. N. Singh, J.)