IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1895 of 2008 BACHCHA KUMAR SINGH, S/O Gajendra Singh, resident of Village- and P.O. Gopalpur, P.S. Naya Gauwa, District- Saran …………Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Commissioner, Saran Division, Saran at Chapra 3. The District Magistrate , Saran 4. The District Superintendent of Education, Saran 5. The Sub Divisional Officer , Sonepur, Saran 6. The Block Education Extension Officer , Sonepur, Saran 7. The Block Development Officer , Sonepur, Saran 8. The Regional Development Officer, Saran Division, Chapra 9. The Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Raj, Gopalpur, Saran 10. The Panchayat Sevak, Gram Panchayat Raj, Gopalpur, Saran 11. Nilesh Kumar Singh, S/o Narendra District Education Officer Singh, resident of village-Bariyarchak, District- Saran……………Respondents. ----------- 2. 17.02.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the state. This application has been filed by the petitioner for a direction to the Block Development Officer , Sonepur for allowing him to continue on the post of Panchayat teacher on which he was appointed vide order contained in Annexure-1. Prayer of the petitioner is for quashing the order dated 08.11.2007 contained in Memo No. 148 dated 08.11.2007 issued by the Panchayat Secretary terminating his service as Panchayat teacher working in Girls School, Gopalpur. Petitioner’s case is that he belongs to handicapped category with 80% disability. He applied for the post and was selected vide letter No. 7 dated 19.12.2006. He was posted as teacher in Girls Primary School, Gopalpur, Sonepur in the 2 district of Saran. He worked from 19.12.2006 to 24.9.2007 i.e. the date when by order contained in Annexure-3, his service was terminated. Petitioner’s case is that the impugned order has been passed in violation of the provisions of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights & Full Participation) Act, 1995. In the act, it is provided that the benefit of disability will be allowed in appointments in general category as well as in reserved category. Petitioner was appointed in the general category as a disabled but his appointment has been cancelled without any reasons and in his place, respondent No. 7 has been appointed, irrespective of the fact, he has not furnished any certificate in support of his disability. Let this matter be decided by the Block Development Officer, Sonepur. While deciding the case of the petitioner, the respondent No. 7, the Block Development Officer , Sonepur will take into considerations of provisions of the 1995 Act. The Block Development Officer , Sonepur will decide this matter after giving notice and opportunity to both petitioner as well as the respondent No. 11 . This matter should be decided within three weeks from the date of production/communication of the order. This application is dispose of. AKV/ ( Mridula Mishra, J )