IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No 4584 of 2010 1. PAMMY KUMARI D/O SURENDRA SINGH R/O MOH.- GAVAL BIGHA, P.S.- RAMPUR, DISTT.- GAYA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE DIRECTOR, PRIMARY EDUCATION BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION GAYA, DISTT.- GAYA 4. THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICE GAYA 5. THE DISTRICT TEACHER EMPLOYMENT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, GAYA THROUGH IT MEMBER DISTT.- GAYA 6. THE PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, EMPLOYMENT UNIT, GRAM PANCHAYAT SOHAIPUR ( MANPUR ), DISTT.- GAYA 7. THE MUKHIYA, EMPLOYMENT UNIT GRAM PANCHAYAT, SAHAIPUR, DISTT.- GAYA ----------- 2 04.08.2010 Pursuant to advertisement issued for appointment of visually handicapped candidates as Panchayat Teacher, in the year 2008, petitioner applied. Even though conditions stipulated in the advertisement was that minimum level of impairment has to be 40%, petitioner herself applied with certificate showing visual impairment of 30% only. She was, accordingly, not selected. She filed Appeal No 673 of 2009 before the District Panchayat Primary Teachers Appointment Appellate Tribunal who, by order dated 26.11.2009, has rejected the application of the petitioner on the ground that petitioner herself had given certificate showing 30% visual impairment as against the requirement of 40% and above. Petitioner states that before the Tribunal decided the matter, she was able to get a certificate from the office of the Civil Surgeon, Jehanabad being certificate dated 03.11.2009 showing visual disability to the extent of 45% which the Tribunal could not take into consideration in view of the fact that petitioner was absent on the day when the matter was heard by the Tribunal. Considering the fact that the petitioner had obtained the 2 certificate of visual disability of 45% and she states that the disability is a continuing and aggravating disability, subject to the certificate being verified, I would direct the Tribunal to reconsider the matter within one month from today of petitioner’s filing a copy of this order before it and pass orders in accordance with law. With this observation, the matter is remanded to the Tribunal for fresh consideration, as indicated above. This application is, thus, disposed of. M.E.H./ (Navaniti Prasad Singh)