IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2903 of 2011 Ritesh Kumar Gupta, son of Shri Banarshi Prasad Gupta, resident of village/Mohalla Kesariya Road, Siwan Hotel, P.O.and P.S.Bara Chakiya, District East Champaran at Motihari------------------------------------petitioner Versus 1.The State of Bihar 2.The District Magistrate, East Champaran at Motihari 3.Block Development Officer, Kalyanpur, P.O. + P.S. Kalyanpur, District East Champaran 4.Mukhiya Gram Panchayat Raj, Rajpur, P.O. Rajpur, P.S.Kalyanpur, District East Champaran, Motihari 5.Panchayat Secretary, P.O. Rajpur, P.S. Kalyanpur, District East Champaran, Motihari 6.Raj Kumar Tripathi, son of Ram Babu Tripathi, resident of village Rajpur, P.S.Kalyanpur, District East Champaran------------------respondents ----------- For the petitioner :Mr.Mritunjay Pd.Singh, Advocate For the State :Mr.Umesh Kumar, AC to G.P.1 ---- 3. 27.9.2011 I.A.No.6749 of 2011 The interlocutory application has been filed for addition of Raj Kumar Tripathi as party respondent No.6 to the writ application on the ground that he would be affected if an order is passed in favour of the petitioner. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the prayer for impleadment of party is allowed. I.A.No.6749 of 2011 is, accordingly, disposed of. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 21.8.2008 (Annexure-9) passed by the Block Development 2 Officer, Kalyanpur by which he has rejected the claim of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Panchayat Teacher. The fact of the case is that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Panchayat Teacher on 30.11.2006 and joined his post on 14.12.2006. Subsequently on the basis of complaints that the appointments had not been made in accordance with the rules of reservation on the roster points fixed for the concerned panchayat, on 9.3.2007 a review counseling was held. In the meantime one Vishwanath Bhagat, who was a trained candidate and had been appointed against a post in the unreserved category, had tendered his resignation on 6.2.2007. On 9.3.2007 the selection was made keeping in view the position prevailing as in the month of November, 2006 at the time of the earlier counseling and appointments were made as per the roster points available and different candidates were appointed against different posts. The said Vishwanath Bhagat was found fit for appointment against a post in unreserved category. In place of the petitioner one Rahmat Ali was appointed on the post reserved for Extremely Backward Class and in place of respondent 3 No.6 Raj Kumar Tripathi one Smt.Nirmala Pandey was considered fit for appointment against another post of unreserved category. The appointments of the petitioner and Raj Kumar Tripathi were cancelled having been found to be contrary to the rules of reservation and roster points available were held to be illegal and their services were terminated. However, on the post of unreserved category which had fallen vacant on the resignation of the said Vishwanath Bhagat on 6.2.2007 the respondent No.6 Raj Kumar Tripathi, having been found to be a candidate having highest marks among the remaining candidates, was appointed. The issue raised by the petitioner is that since the said Vishwanath Bhagat had resigned, therefore, the entire appointments should have been reconsidered afresh and in that case the petitioner would become entitled to appointment against the post of unreserved category. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that after fresh counseling posts should have been filled up from top of the list. It is further submitted that the petitioner was properly selected and was not at all at fault in the matter of appointment and did not join at other 4 places where he was selected, but due to illegal action of the authorities he is out of service. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, submits that Raj Kumar Tripathi having more marks than the petitioner has rightly been appointed on the post which had fallen vacant on the resignation of Vishwanath Bhagat. The issue raised for consideration in the present matter is whether on the resignation of a Panchayat Teacher after he had joined the post the vacancy caused by his resignation is alone to be considered for the purpose of filling up the post or the entire process of counseling has to be readjusted treating the said post as vacant from the very beginning. It is evident that once the counseling is done and the appointments are made then the posts having been filled up by the candidates belonging to the relevant category in accordance with the roster points available by applying reservation rules, any vacancy that may arise thereafter on the resignation or death of an appointee can only be filled up in accordance with the rules for filling up the post of the said category: if the post belongs to a reserved category the same has to be filled up by the candidate who has the 5 highest marks among the remaining candidates in the merit list belonging to that particular reserved category; if the post belongs to an unreserved category then the same has to be filled up by the candidate who has the highest marks in the merit list among all the remaining candidates whether belonging to general or reserved category. Applying the aforesaid principle it is evident that the authorities have acted correctly in the matter and given appointment to respondent No.6 Raj Kumar Tripathi, on the post which had fallen vacant on the resignation of Vishwanath Bhagat on 6.2.2007. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that fresh counseling was done on 9.3.2007 is factually incorrect as the counseling on the said date was merely for reexamining the appointments made in November, 2006 on the posts available by applying correctly rules of reservation to the roster points which were available for filling up the posts at the relevant time when the original counseling was done in November, 2006. The fact that in the meantime on 6.2.2007 one of the selected candidates Vishwanath Bhagat had resigned would be of no relevance for the said purpose and rightly the authorities had found 6 illegality in the selection process of November, 2006 rectified the same. Thereafter since he had resigned the question would be of filling up the vacancy and since he had been appointed on a post belonging to unreserved category, it had to be filled up by the candidate who had obtained highest marks among all the remaining candidates belonging to all the categories. The respondent Raj Kumar Tripathi was accordingly appointed against the vacancy caused on the resignation of Vishwanath Bhagat. Hence this Court does not find any illegality in the action of the respondent authorities. The petitioner having been appointed on the basis of wrong application of the rules of reservation to the roster points available did not become entitled to any legal right in his favour and the authorities were not only not at fault but obliged to correct the wrong appointments made and the same has also been done within a reasonable time after complaints about the wrong appointments had been made. Thus, the petitioner cannot claim to be entitled to any post. In the light of the aforesaid discussions, this Court does not find any illegality in the impugned order dated 7 21.8.2008 passed by the Block Development Officer, Kalyanpur. The writ application is, accordingly, dismissed. (Ramesh Kumar Datta,J.) Spal/