IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2894 of 2007 Anita Kumari, Daughter of Bachhey Lal Ravi Das, Resident of Village Datwan, P.S. Khajauli, District Madhubani. -------- Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Human Resources Department, Govt. of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna. 2. The District Magistrate, Madhubani. 3. The Deputy Development Commissioner, Madhubani. 4. The Chairman, Zila Parishad, Madhubani. 5. The District Education Officer, Madhubani. ------- Respondents ----------- 2 01.10.2010 Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner as with regard to the following prayer:- “1. That this writ application is being filed for issuance of an appropriate writ/writs, order or orders in the nature of mandamus for directing and commanding the respondents to employ/appoint the petitioner on the post of Secondary teacher for the subject of Home Science under the District Council Madhubani reserving the seat/post for scheduled cast and scheduled tribe for which the petitioner is a single trained scheduled cast candidate, which has not been appointed by the respondent.” and perusing the counter affidavit, this Court is of the considered opinion that as the petitioner’s appointment was to be made on the post of Teacher in the Zila Parishad, 2 the Deputy Development Commissioner, Madhubani (Respondent no.3)should examine the grievance of the petitioner in the light of the Government Circular as with regard to the reservation claimed by the petitioner. This Court, however, must make it clear that in the counter affidavit filed by the District Education Officer, Madhubani, it has been pointed out that there was no subject-wise reservation in terms of the Government letter dated 25th September, 2006 (Annexure-1) but, then, the petitioner, being the trained graduate and belonging to the scheduled caste category, was still entitled to be considered for her appointment if she had better marks than anyone even in the general category. Therefore, the Deputy Development Commissioner, Madhubani must examine the matter afresh without being prejudiced by the stand taken by the respondents in their counter affidavit. It is, however, made clear that this Court has not expressed its final opinion on the merit of the claim of the petitioner and the Deputy Development Commissioner, 3 Madhubani, must take his independent decision in accordance with law within a period of four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. With the aforementioned observation and direction, this application is disposed of. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)