IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6647 of 2008 Md.Iliyas, son of Md. Nawab, resident of village-Mahshour, P.O.- Putai, P.S.-Manigachhi, District-Darbhanga. ………….Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Block Development Officer, Sadar Darbhanga. 3. Block Education Extension Officer, Gramin, Darbhanga. 4. Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Raj, Bijuli, Darbhanga. 5. Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Raj, Bijuli, Darbhanga. 6. Md. Irfan, Translator Urdu, and Panchayat Teacher and Prakhand Teacher, then Niyojan Prabhari Block, Darbhanga. …………..Respondents. ----------- 3/ 21.07.2009 Counsel for the petitioner is present. No one appears on behalf of the State as well as respondents 4, 5 and 6 though respondents 4, 5 and 6 have appeared through their counsels. However, counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no. 5, Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Raj, Bijuli, Darbhanga, is on record. No counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State. Petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 15.3.2008 passed in Case No. 15/07-08 by Block Development Officer, Sadar, Darbhanga, by which petitioner has been terminated from the post of Panchayat Teacher. Petitioner’s case is that against the existing vacancy in the Bijuli Panchayat, as provided under rule 8 of Bihar Panchayat Primary Teachers (Appointment and Service Conditions) Rule, 2006, vacancies were advertised. Petitioner and others applied for the post of teachers under different reserved and unreserved categories. Petitioner applied for the - 2 - post of Urdu teacher in the reserved category as he belongs to the most backward category. Respondent No. 1 Nikahat Parvin had applied against the post in the general category unreserved female category. On different dates counselling were done for candidates belonging to a particular/different category. Petitioner having the highest marks in the category most backward class for Urdu teachers was placed in the merit list. Letter of appointment was issued and he joined on his post. Subsequently, a complain was made by Nikahat Parvin, stating that she had more percentage of marks than the petitioner and illegally she was not considered for appointment. The complain was entertained by the Block Development Officer, inquiry was initiated but petitioner was not noticed to show casue. Finally the impugned order was passed, terminating the petitioner from his service. Counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no. 5 indicate that the Mukhiya and Members of the Selection Committee had proceeded in the matters of appointment following the procedure as provided under Rule 8 of 2006 Rules. The counselling of the candidates was done according to their applications. The candidates who had applied for general category post, their cases were considered in the counselling for general category and the candidates who had applied for the reserved category their cases were considered for reserved category. Petitioner’s name was at S. No. 6 in the combined - 3 - merit list published on 13.11.2007. He had highest marks in merit list of the reserved category untrained candidates. So far Nikahat Parvin is concerned, though, she has higher marks than the petitioner but her application was for a post in the general category. Her case could not have been equated with the case of the petitioner. Considering the counter affidavit, which indicates that petitioner was selected considering his highest marks and merit, against the post in the reserved category. Nikahat Parvin’s name was in the merit list prepared on 18.12.2006, which is list for the general category candidates. In the counter affidavit it has been stated that on the basis of complain made by the Nikahat parvin there was no reason for terminating petitioner service, since as both had not applied for the post falling within the same category. Respondents have not appeared at the time of hearing and placed their case before the Court. Considering the facts and the circumstances of the case the order dated 15.3.2008 passed in Case No. 15/07-08 is quashed. Respondent No. 3, the Block Education Extension Officer, respondent no.4, Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Raj, Bijuli, Darbhanga and respondent no. 5, Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Raj, Bijuli, Darbhanga, are directed to re-instate the petitioner on the post, on which he was already working and allow him all consequential benefits for which he - 4 - would have been entitled remaining in service. This application is allowed. Sanjeet/ (Mridula Mishra, J.)