IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11735 of 2009 NIRAJ KUMARI, D/o Charittar Prasad, resident of village-Bared, P.S.- Muffasil, in the district of Gaya. ……Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar, through the Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Director, Primary Education, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Jehanabad. 4. The District Superintendent of Education, Jehanabad. 5. The District Teacher Employment Appellate Authority, Jehanabad, through its, Chairman, Jehanabad. 6. The Block Development Officer, Makhdumpur in the district of Jehanabad. 7. The Block Education Extension Officer, Makhdumpur in the district of Jehanabad. 8. The Gram Panchayat, Punhada through its Secretary under Makhdumpur Block in the district of Jehanabad. 9. The Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Punhada under Makhdumpur Block in the district of Jehanabad. 10. Santosh Kumar, Son of Sri Kant Suman, resident of Village-Bared, P.S.-Mufassil in the district of Gaya. ……….Respondents. ----------- 2/ 09.11.2009 Heard counsel for the petitioner and the State. Petitioner’s grievance relates to non-consideration of her candidature for appointment on the post of Panchayat Teacher against the post reserved for handicapped. The petitioner has challenged the appointment of respondent No. 10 Santosh Kumar, who was appointed in the handicapped category, before the District Teachers Employment Appellate Tribunal, Jehanabad. The Tribunal vide order contained in Memo No. 507 dated 10.07.2009 rejected petitioner’s claim, for the reason that in the merit list petitioner’s application was considered in the backward category female where her percentage was lower than the person who was selected for appointment. Subsequently, the Block Education Extension 2 Officer on the direction of D.S.E issued a letter dated 23.11.2006, to make appointment in the reserved category, against the reserved post for disabled. In the light of this letter case of the petitioner as well as respondent No. 10 were considered. However, the disability certificate produced by the petitioner was found incomplete, percentage of disability had not been mentioned. Her application was rejected as incomplete and thus, only respondent No. 10 remained in the field for consideration and he was appointed. I do not find any error in the order passed by the District Teachers Employment Appellate Tribunal, Jehanabad dated 10.07.2009 contained in Memo No. 507. Accordingly, this application is dismissed. Sanjeet/ (Mridula Mishra, J.)