IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11122 of 2007 RAKESH KUMAR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 3. 11.08.2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. No one appears on behalf of Respondent no. 6, despite having entered appearance. The petitioner and Respondent no. 6 were applicants for the post of Additional Panchayat Shiksha Mitra. The only issue is with regard to the reservation category to which the second post shall go. Whether it shall be an extremely backward caste candidate or whether it will go to a backward caste candidate, to which Respondent no. 6 belongs. The issue of interpretation of Government circulars in this regard is shortened by the enquiry report of the Block Education Extension Officer bearing no. 29 dated 31.1.2008. It concludes specifically that Respondent no. 6 had been appointed contrary to the policy of reservation for appointment. That according to the roster, the second post was meant for the extremely backward caste candidate meaning thereby the petitioner, on which Respondent no. 6 belonging to the backward caste has wrongly been appointed. Surprisingly, the Block Education Extension Officer has also filed a counter affidavit purporting to be on behalf of superior authority, the District Superintendent of Education. The report dated 31.1.2008 finds no reference in the counter affidavit whatsoever which completely evades to answer the same. It is not in controversy that there were four posts - 2 - of additional teacher. According to the Rules 50% of the vacancy went to male and 50% to female. It was not only in the event of odd number of vacancy thereafter that preference was given to the female. This was not the case for the presently. This Court finds it difficult to appreciate the stand of the State in not following their own document dated 31.1.2008 and yet to contest the matter by filing counter affidavit. The Court was inclined to impose costs but refrains from doing so. The appointment of Respondent no. 6 against the reservation vacancy meant for extremely backward candidate in the light of the enquiry report dated 31.1.2008 is, accordingly, set aside. It is held that the petitioner is entitled to be considered for appointment for the same in terms of the very same report. Let such consideration be done within a maximum period of six weeks from the date of receipt and/or production of a copy of this order. The writ application stands allowed. AKS/ (Navin Sinha, J.)