IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2985 of 2008 MD.JUNED, S/O MD.ATAUR RAHMAN, R/O VILLAGE- PACHGACHHI, P.S.-BALIA BELON (KADWA), DISTRICT-KATIHAR. ………………PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. THE DIRECTOR, PRIMARY EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, KATIHAR. 4. THE DEPUTY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER, KATIHAR. 5. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, KATIHAR. 6. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFICER, KADWA, KATIHAR. 7. THE BLOCK EXTENSION EDUCATION OFFICER, KADWA, DISTRICT-KATIHAR. 8. THE CHAIRMAN, SELECTION COMMITTEE OF PANCHAYAT SIKCHAK GRAM PANCHAYAT UNASO PACHGACHHI, P.S.-BALIA BELON (KADWA), DISTRICT-KATIHAR. 9. THE MUKHIYA, GRAM PANCHAYAT UNASO PACHGACHHI, P.S.-BALIA BELON (KADWA), DISTRICT-KATIHAR. 10.SECRETARY-CUM-PANCHAYAT SEVAK, GRAM PANCHAYAT UNASO PACHGACHHI, P.S.-BALIA BELON (KADWA), DISTRICT-KATIHAR. 11.ABDUS SAMAD, S/O MD.HABIB ALAM, R/O VILLAGE-SUNDARGACHHI MINAPUR, P.S.-BALIA BELONE (KADWA), DISTRICT-KATIHAR. ……………RESPONDENTS. ----------- 3 29.06.2011 By Annexure-5 dated 27.09.2007, the B.D.O. has rejected the complaint of the petitioner in respect of non-consideration of his case for appointment as Panchayat Teacher under the handicapped quota. Learned counsel for the petitioner refers to a Resolution of the Government contained in memo no.62 dated 05.01.2007 2 which appears to be a consolidated instruction in terms of the earlier instructions issued by the Government from time to time which contains a clause that if sufficient number of candidates are not available under the quota the yardsticks for determination of their percentage of disability may be relaxed. He submits that the order of the B.D.O. itself shows that the petitioner was 30% disabled. Hence, the minimum requirement of disability of 40% ought to have been relaxed in favour of the petitioner as the petitioner was the only candidate available for appointment under the quota. He fairly informs this Court that after the complaint of the petitioner was rejected respondent no.11 was appointed in his place against the vacancy. However, he was also later on terminated against which the respondent no.11 has already moved the Appellate Authority. In the circumstances, instead of issuing notice to respondent no.11 and keeping the matter pending, this Court feels it appropriate that the petitioner should also join before the Appellate Authority in the 3 matter and place his case for appointment in terms of the said Resolution dated 05.01.2007. If the petitioner appears before the Appellate Authority, the Appellate Authority shall consider the case of the petitioner also and shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. The writ application is disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. Arvind/ ( J. N. Singh,J.)