IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.18568 of 2009 Manoj Kumar, Son of Sri Sita Ram Mandal, resident of village Akhatwar (Chhapaki), P.O. Bhataura, P.S. Hathuri, District Samastipur……………………………………………………. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Bihar, Patna. 3. The Director, Primary Education, Human Resources Development Department, Bihar, Patna 4. The District Magistrate, Darbhanga. 5. The District Superintendent of Education, Darbhanga. 6. The Block Development Officer, Baheri, Darbhanga. 7. The Block Education Extension Officer, Baheri, Darbhanga. 8. The Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Raj, Hathaori South, P.S. Baheri, District Darbhanga 9. The Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Raj, Hathaori South, P.S. Baheri, District Darbhanga 10. The Member, District Teachers Employment Appellate Tribunal, Darbhanga. 11. Sidheshwar Jha, Son of Bauan Jha, resident of village Rupauli, P.S. Baheri, District Darbhanga…………………………………………………….……Respondents ----------- 4 09.11.2010 Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the respondents. With agreement of the learned counsel for the parties, this writ application is being disposed of on short question at this stage itself. From the impugned order of the Appellate Authority it appears that the dispute was with regard to percentage of 2 disability of the petitioner. The contention of the petitioner is that certificate of the petitioner that he had 70% disability was not accepted by the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority found that in the medical certificate, 70% disability of the petitioner was shown by adding 30 to 40 and, thus, percentage of disability of petitioner appeared to be doubtful. Therefore, the Appellate Authority has found appointment of the petitioner as not correct and has it set aside. Parties agree that existence of disability of the petitioner be examined afresh by a competent Medical Board and percentage of disability of both petitioner and respondent no.11 be determined and a report may be submitted by the Medical Board on the basis of which the Appellate Authority may take a fresh decision. In the circumstances, the order of the Appellate Authority, as contained in Annexure- 10, is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Appellate Authority which is directed to request the Civil Surgeon-cum- Chief Medical Officer to constitute a Medical 3 Board of competent doctors for examination of disability of both petitioner and respondent no.11. The Medical Board shall examine them and submit its report with regard to nature of disability and percentage thereof in respect of each of them. The same report shall be forwarded by the Civil Surgeon to the Appellate Authority for its consideration. On receipt of such report, the Appellate Authority shall afford an opportunity to both petitioner and respondent no.11 and after hearing them, pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. This writ application is allowed to the extent, as indicated above. BT (J. N. Singh, J.)