IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3362 of 2011 Niranjan Kumar Jha S/O Shri Krishna Madhav Jha R/O Village- Bangarhatta, Police Station- Singhia, District- Samastipur …………………. Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar, Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Human Resources Development, Government Of Bihar, Patna 2. The Director, Primary Education, Government Of Bihar, Patna 3. The District Magistrate, Samastipur 4. The District Superintendent Of Education, Samastipur 5. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Rosera, District- Samastipur 6. The Block Development Officer, Singhia, District- Samastipur 7. The Block Education Extension Officer, Singhia, District- Samastipur 8. The Mukhiya Gram Panchayat Raj, Bangarhatta, Block- Singhia, District- Samastipur 9. The Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Raj, Bangarhatta, Block- Singhia, District- Samastipur 10. The District Teacher Appointment Appellate Authority, Samastipur, Through Its Member 11. Kaushlesh Raman Jha S/O Ram Pravesh Jha R/O Village- Wali, P.S.- Singhiya, District- Samastipur ……… Respondents. ---------------------------------- For the petitioner :- M/s. Pramod Mishra and Vijay Kumar Mukul, Advocates For the State :- Mr. Parmeshwar Vishwakarma, AC to SC 27 2. 18.10.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner prays for setting aside the order dated 4.6.2010 passed in Appeal No. 1150/2010 by the District Teacher Employment Appellate Authority, Samastipur by which the appeal filed by the petitioner has been rejected and further for a direction upon the respondent authorities to appoint the petitioner on the post of Panchayat Teacher under the Handicapped Category. 2 The petitioner is a handicapped person having 80% disability and applied under the said Category for the post of Panchayat Teacher producing a Medical Certificate dated 23.8.2006 granted by the Civil Surgeon –cum- Chief Medical Officer, Samastipur. Apart from the petitioner the respondent no. 11 was also an applicant for the said post and on conclusion of the selection process he was appointed on the basis of the certificate of disability granted by the Civil Surgeon –cum- Chief Medical Officer, Samastipur; he having obtained the marks of 60.77% in the merit list as compared to 37.66% by the petitioner. Aggrieved by the aforesaid action of the authorities, the petitioner approached the District Teacher Employment Appellate Authority, who has, by the impugned order dated 4.6.2010, rejected his claim. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of the Appellate Authority is fit to be set aside as the respondent no. 11 has obtained his appointment on the basis of a fake and forged certificate. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is 80% handicapped whereas the respondent no. 11 is only 60% handicapped. From a perusal of the impugned order of the Appellate Authority it is evident that the Appellate Authority 3 has considered the fact that the respondent no. 11 has much higher marks than the petitioner. Thus, on the said facts the appointment of respondent no. 11 is not fit to be challenged. The Appellate Authority has further found that the certificate of disability in respect of both the petitioner and respondent no. 11 has been issued by the Civil Surgeon – cum- Chief Medical Officer, Samastipur and thus the allegation according to him was without any basis. This Court is of the view that so far as the percentage of disability is concerned, so long as it is sufficient for a person to come within the category of disabled, it does not thereafter matter as to whether one candidate has a greater decree of disability as compared to the other and no benefit can be derived by a candidate merely on the ground that his disability percentage is more than the other candidate. Further, considering the fact that respondent no. 11 had higher marks than the petitioner, the appointment of respondent no. 11 cannot be held to be illegal. Moreover, the Appellate Authority has found that the disability certificate has been issued by the same authority and the allegation in this regard does not have any basis. For the aforesaid reasons this Court does not find any of the submissions made by learned counsel for the 4 petitioner as sustainable. The writ application is thus, devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. So far as the allegation of the petitioner that the certificate of disability produced by the respondent no. 11 is fake and forged one, there is provision under Rule 11 of the Bihar Panchyat Teacher (Appointment and Service Condition) Rules, 2006 for the verification of the certificates produced by the concerned candidates by the Mukhiya of the Gram Panchayat and in case the same are found to be forged or wrong then the appointment can be cancelled and other legal action can be taken. It is thus open to the petitioner to approach the Mukhiya of the Gram Panchayat with his complaint, who shall get the certificate of disability of the respondent no. 11 verified in accordance with the established procedure in this regard and in case the same is found to be forged or fabricated, take appropriate steps in the matter. S.Pandey (Ramesh Kumar Datta, J.)