IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.W.J.C. No.11694 of 2007 Pashupati Nath Singh, son of late Gupteshwar Singh Resident of village Nagarpur, P.O. Barka Sighanpura, P.S. Simri, district Buxar .. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. The Commissioner-cum-Principal Secregtary, Human Resources Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna 3. The Director, Primary Education, Government of Bihar, Patna 4. The District Magistrate, Buxar 5. The District Superintendent of Education, Buxar 6. The Block Development Officer, Simri Block, district Buxar 7. The Block Education Extension Officer, Simari Block, district Buxar 8. The Mukhiya, Barka Dhakaich Panchayat, Simari Block District Buxar **** /2/ 18.02.2009 Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing for the State. 2. Counter affidavit and the supplementary counter affidavit have been filed on behalf of the District Superintendent of Education, Buxar. In both the counter affidavits wrong statement has been made on affidavit. The statement made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the District Superintendent of Education, Buxar, is completely against the statutory provisions for giving relaxation in age to the disabled persons as well as Government’s Resolution, in this regard. 2 3. Petitioner had applied for appointment as Panchayat Teacher pursuant to advertisement published in September, 2006. He had applied for appointment in disabled category. In the merit list petitioner’s position was at serial no. 1. In spite of that he was not appointed for the reason that he has crossed the maximum age of thirty years, which is required under the Rules for being appointed as Panchayat Teacher. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that under Panchayat Primary Teachers’ (Appointment and Service Condition) Rules, 2008 there is provision for relaxation of age to the disabled persons for ten years. He has not been selected by the respondents without considering the provision for relaxation of ten years age in respect of the physically handicapped candidates. 4. Counter affidavit has been filed in which it is stated that according to law petitioner is entitled for relaxation in appointment only for five years as provided under 2006 Rules. Applications for appointments were invited in 2006 and at the time Panchayat Primary Teachers’ (Appointment and Service Condition) Rules was applicable in the mater of giving relaxation. At the time of appointment he has crossed 3 five years and on 01.02.2006 he was about 42 years 4 months and 18 days, in this way he had already crossed limit of five years relaxation. It has also been stated that ten years relaxation was not available to the petitioner under 2006 Rules as well as under Government’s Resolution No. 62, dated 05.01.2007. Paragraph 12 of Resolution No. 62 clearly debars the writ petitioner. In support of this statement the Government’s Resolution No. 62, dated 05.01.2007, has been annexed as Annexure “A”. Annexure “A” is a photo stat copy of Resolution, but in this Annexure Clause 12 has not properly been copied. In Resolution No. 62 under Clause 12, it is stated that any appointment, which is made on the basis of open competition, physically handicapped would be allowed ten years relaxation in age. Only in appointments on the basis of limited competition, five years’ relaxation in age will be allowed. Where ten years’ relaxation in open appointment is mentioned under Clause 12 that part has intentionally not been copied and the part where five years’ relaxation is mentioned that part has been copied and annexed as annexure “A” with the counter affidavit filed by the District Superintendent of Education, Buxar. Petitioner has 4 specifically stated in the writ application that when his case was not considered for selection he made representation before the District Magistrate, Buxar, and also before the Chief Minister. In response to his representation the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms issued a letter, dated 12.06.2007, contained in Memo no. 2010, informing that in case of disabled candidate’s relaxation in age should be given as provided under Resolution No. 62, dated 05.01.2007, Clause 12. Even this was not considered and ignored. 5. I fail to understand the approache of Government Officials in interpreting the Government Resolutions and statutory provisions. They usually interpret it according to their own interest, such, temptation needs to be resisted. The Government officials are supposed to act as an impartial agency. Their action should be inconsonance with Government’s Resolution as well as statutory provisions. In the present case, the respondents have completely ignored the Government Resolution as well as provision under the Act, namely, The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995. 5 6. Accordingly, direction is being issued to the Block Development Officer, Buxar, respondent no. 6, the Block Education Extension Officer, Buxar, respondent no. 7, and the Mukhiya, respondent no. 8, to consider petitioner’s case for selection on the post of Panchayat Teacher giving relaxation of ten years as mentioned in Annexure 4 as well as the Government’s Resolution No. 62, dated 05.01.2007. The order in respect to case of the petitioner must be passed by the respondents within four weeks from the date of presentation/communication of this order. 7. With these observations and directions, this application is allowed. Cp:2/S.A. ( Mridula Mishra, J. )