IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 4114 of 2009 Rajnish Kumar Choudhary, Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors ---------------------------- For the Petitioner: Mr. Sandip Kumar, Advocate For the State: Sanjeev Kumar-7, AC to SC-17 *********** 06. 29.09.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. No one appears on behalf of private Respondent No. 8 though he has already appeared through Vakalatnama. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of District Superintendent of Education, Khagaria, Respondent No. 3. This application has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the order, dated 23.01.2009, passed by the District Teacher’s Employment Appellate Tribunal, Khagaria in Employment Appeal No. 01 of 2008, whereby appointment of petitioner as Panchayat Teacher in the reserved disabled category has been cancelled. On perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the reason for cancelling the appointment of the petitioner is that he does not belong to the disabled category. His disability certificate indicates his percentage of disability: 30 per cent temporary hearing disability; and 15 per cent visual permanent disability. In 2 the Government’s circular, there is no such provision that adding two kinds of disability, the benefit of disability can be allowed to any person, as minimum percentage of disability for getting benefit of disability is 45 per cent. On the other hand, counsel for the petitioner submits that in case his appointment is being cancelled for this reason then it is also applicable in the case of Respondent No. 8. His medical certificate also shows that adding two kinds of disability hearing and speech, his percentage of disability is 58 per cent. It has also been submitted by the petitioner’s counsel that Respondent No. 8 had never applied for the post and there is no reason for entertaining his objection petition. On perusal of the disability certificate of Respondent No. 8, which has been annexed as Annexure-B to the Counter affidavit, filed on behalf of the State, I find that there are some interpolations in his certificate. Considering the fact that disability certificate of the petitioner as well as Respondent No. 8, both is not up to the mark, I find that the order, passed by the Tribunal is fit to be interfered. Accordingly, the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal is quashed. The appointment of Respondent No. 8, who is continuing on account of order passed by Tribunal is also quashed. The Selection Committee is directed to refer the case of petitioner as well as Respondent No. 8 for assessment 3 of their percentage of disability to Civil Surgeon, Patna with a request to issue certificate on their examination within two weeks from the date of such requisition. Receiving disability certificate of petitioner as well as Respondent No. 8, the Selection Committee will consider their merit and pass a fresh order of appointment in favour of the candidate, who is more suitable in the reserved category of handicapped. In case petitioner is found suitable, the Selection Committee will issue appointment letter in favour of the petitioner only in case petitioner is not found eligible for appointment, case of Respondent No. 8 will be considered for appointment by the Selection Committee. The final appointment orders must be issued by the Selection Committee within eight weeks from the date of production / communication of this Order. SKM (Mridula Mishra, J.)