IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.17226 of 2009 AKHTAR ANSARI S/O LATE BUNDO ANSARI R/O VILLAGE- BUDHIYALAPUR, P.O.NEYADIH, P.S.SONO, DISTT-JAMUI. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. THE SECRETARY, PRIMARY AND ADULT EDUCATION DEPARTMENT BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE COMMISSIONER-CUM- SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT BIHAR, PATNA. 4. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRAE -CUM-COLLECTOR JAMUI. 5. THE DISTRICT EDUCATION SUPERINTEDENT JAMUI. 6. THE MEMBER OF DISTRICT TEACHER APPOINTMENT TRIBUNAL, JAMUI. 7. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, SONO. 8. THE BLOCK EDUCATION EXTENSION OFFICER, SONO, DISTT- JAMUI. 9. THE PANCHAYAT SACHIV GRAM PANCHAYAT NAIYADIH, SONO, JAMUI. 10. THE MUKHIA, PANCHAYAT RAJ, NAIYADIH, DISTT-JAMUI. 11. MUSTAFA ANSARI, S/O HAKIM ANSARI R/O VILLAGE-CHANDARA, P.S.SONO, DISTT-JAMUI. ----------- For the petitioner:- Mr. Manan Kr. Mishra, Sr. Advocate. For the Private Respondents: - Md. Abdul Naman Khan, Advocate. Md. Naushaduzzoha, Advocate. ----------- 3. 14.01.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for private respondent no.11. Petitioner was appointed as a Panchayat Teacher who joined his post on 7.12.2006 and continued to work in that capacity. He has been ousted by the intervention of the order dated 28.10.2009 passed by the District Teacher Appointment Appellate Authority, Jamui. The said order is Annexure-7 to the writ application, 2 quashing of which petitioner wants in the present writ application. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was appointed on the basis of the decision taken by the Panchayat in question on the basis of declaration of his caste belonging to the Extremely Backward Class annexure-1 category and there was no objection at any point of time on that issue till the bogey of discrimination was raised by private respondent no.11. Respondent no.11 moved the Appellate Authority in the year 2009 by instituting case no. 17 of 2009 making a grievance that he had 57.66% marks whereas, the present petitioner had only 56% marks and he has a right to be appointed on the post. According to private respondent merit has been given a go bye as before the Appellate Authority. From a reading of the decision rendered by the Appellate Authority, it is evident, that the post in question on which the petitioner as well as the private respondent became a claimant, was reserved for Extremely Backward Class. The private respondent had filed his caste certificate along with his application showing himself to be E.B.C., (Annexure-II) whereas the petitioner filed a caste certificate showing himself as E.B.C. (Annexure-I). Since the petitioner was to be given weightage vis-à-vis private 3 respondent no. 11 even though the private respondent had secured 57.66% marks, the petitioner came to be appointed. There is a clear finding given by the Appellate Authority that the private respondent has accepted the position that he had filed a caste certificate showing himself belonging to E.B.C. (Annexure-II). This fact was not denied. The question that now arises is whether, the appointment made on the post should be up- turned now in the year 2011 when the petitioner was already working without any hindrance on the basis of the documents before the Appointing Authority. This Court is not in agreement with the conclusion reached by the Appellate Authority that Panchayat Secretary ought to have known that both the petitioner and respondent no.11 belong to the same category and the declaration by the private respondent ought to have been ignored and the claim of the private respondent should have been considered because he had more marks. This Court is of the opinion that it is none of the business of the appointing authority to make any investigation or use his personal knowledge in matters of such decision making process. They have to go by the declaration made by the candidate at the time of filing of 4 the application and a second thought at a later stage, whatever may be the reason, cannot be allowed to undo a thing or interfere with the settled position when admittedly, no glaring infirmity with regard to the rules of appointment have been committed by the respondent. In fact it would amount to interfering with the appointment of the petitioner to accommodate the private respondent as a measure of reward or award contrary to the declaration made by him, at the time of filing of his application, before the Panchayat in question. The finding of the Appellate Authority to that extent is hereby quashed. No interference is warranted with the appointment of the petitioner who shall continue to serve in the capacity for the Panchayat Teacher as if the impugned order was never passed against him. If as a follow up, in furtherance to the decision of the Appellate Authority, respondent no.11 has been made to join, he shall be removed forthwith and the petitioner will be restored to his position immediately. This writ application is allowed for the reasons indicated above. Anand Kr. ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)