IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5919 of 2008 MD.HAMZA AHSAN Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 4/ 10/7/2008. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner was an applicant for the post of a teacher in the Block. Ignoring his candidature with higher marks, another person came to be appointed when the petitioner represented against the same. The statutory authority under Rule-18 of the Bihar Panchayat Primary Teachers (Appointment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2006 by his order dated 30.1.2008 held that the petitioner had been wronged as he had higher marks than the person appointed when the name of the petitioner had figured at Serial-1 of the panel and that he should have been appointed in place of the person appointed illegally. However he declined to grant any positive relief of appointment which necessitated the present writ application. Learned counsel for the State submits that by a Government order dated 8.11.2007, all appointments under the first phase for appointment of teachers and under which the case of the petitioner had been considered, have been directed to be completed by 30.11.2007 and no appointments under the first phase are permissible thereafter. It is only when the second phase of the appointments commences that fresh appointments can be made. The fallacy in the argument lies in the fact that the petitioner is neither a fresh applicant nor is he seeking a fresh - 2 - appointment under the second phase. The finding is that he was an applicant under the first phase. His name was at serial-1 of the merit list. Considering that he had higher marks than the person wrongly appointed, the wrong appointment has been annulled. Once the vacancy becomes available, all that is required now is to put the petitioner back where he would have been, but for the actions of the respondent authorities themselves, under the first phase. This Court is satisfied that the orders dated 8.11.2007 and 30.1.2008 are bad in law and as such unsustainable. The writ application is allowed. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner and act in accordance with law for his original place in the merit list within a maximum period of 2 months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Both the parties have not made any submissions with regard to any challenge laid out by the person whose services have been terminated, before any superior forum. This order shall, therefore, remain subject to the aforesaid. KC ( Navin Sinha,J )