IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7129 of 2010 1. NIRANJAN KUMAR S/O LATE RAJ NANDAN SINGH R/O VILL.- DOPTA, P.O.- BAKSANDA, P.S. RAJAULI, DISTT.- NAWADAH. VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE SECRETARY-CUM-COMMISSIONER HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, NAWADAH 4. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION-CUM-DISTRICT CORDINATOR OF PROGRAMME SARVA SIKSHA ABHIYAN, NAWADA 5. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER RAJAULI, NAWADA 6. THE BLOCK EDUCATION EXTENTION OFFICER, RAJAULI 7. THE MEMBER, DISTRICT TEACHER'S APPOINTMENT APPELLATE AUTHORITY, NAWADA 8. SMT. MUNA DEVI, MUKHIYA - CUM - CHAIRMAN GRAM PANCHAYAT, HARDIYA, P.O. HARDIYA, RAJAULI, DISTT.- NAWADA 9. SRI BAGESH RANJAN, SECRETARY GRAM PANCHAYAT HARDIYA RAJAULI, DISTT.- NAWADA ----------- 02 14.07.2010 The petitioner states that he had applied for recruitment as Primary Panchayat Teacher. The applications being many and vacancy being about 18, the selection committee first drew a merit list of applicants securing above 60%. That filled up 12 vacancies. For the remaining 8, the range of marks was brought down to 60% to 45% and second counselling was conducted. In the second counselling, petitioner, who is otherwise handicapped also, was selected. He was issued appointment letter and he had been working. The appointment has now been cancelled by the selection committee on the ground that he had been given undue preference of handicapped. Petitioner takes two objections. Firstly, he states that there was reservation of 3% for handicapped. Petitioner being handicapped had to be considered therein. In any - 2 - view of the matter, petitioner submits that there is nothing on the record to show that in the second counselling there was any candidate who had secured more points than the petitioner. That being so, petitioner’s services would not be terminated and, that too, after he had already joined. Lastly, it was submitted that in view of departmental circular prior approval of the Primary Education Department is necessary before dismissal, which was not taken. Petitioner states that consequent to this decision, he represented to the Block Education Officer, who enquired into the matter and reported that the petitioner’s appointment was legal and valid still petitioner was not reinstated. He then represented to the District Magistrate-cum-Collector in the matter, who ordered a detailed enquiry, which was done and reports submitted, once again stating that there was nothing wrong in the petitioner’s appointment. That order also notices the fact that prior to dismissal approval was required. Petitioner inspite of this continues to be out of job. Having heard the parties, in my view, the petitioner must approach the District Teachers Appointment Appellate Tribunal once again. The Tribunal would be obliged to take into account the enquiry reports, as aforesaid, and examine the records properly and then pass orders. Merely because the Tribunal is asked to proceed expeditiously, it would not mean that it will conduct its proceedings in such a slip shod manner. The Tribunal is deciding the vital interest of parties. Therefore, the impugned - 3 - order of the Tribunal is set aside and the matter is remanded back for fresh consideration in the light of the observations and directions as made above. The Tribunal would examine the record and other materials and decide the case on merits within a period of six months from the date of production of this order before the Tribunal. In the meantime, the vacancy caused because of petitioner’s removal will not be filled up. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. Trivedi (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)