IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13419 of 2010 JAIMANGAL SINGH S/O LATE RAM SURESH SINGH R/O VILL SIRCHAND NAWADA, P.S.JAMUI, DISTT-JAMUI. VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, H.R.D.D. GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE SECRETARY, H.R.D.D. GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 4. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE JAMUI 5. THE MEMBER, DISTRICT APPELLATE AUTHORITY JAMUI 6. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION JAMUI 7. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER JAMUI 8. SRI RANJIT PASWAN EX-BLOCK EDUCATION EXTENTION OFFICER, JAMUI 9. THE BLOCK EDUCATION EXTENTION OFFICER, JAMUI. 10. PRAMUKH JAMUI BLOCK, JAMUI. ----------- 02 15.09.2010 The petitioner challenges the order of the District Teacher Appointment Appellate Tribunal, Jamui passed in Case No.31/09. Petitioner’s case is that one Prabhunandan Singh was wrongly selected in stead of the petitioner for appointment as Physical Trained Block Level Teacher. Immediately upon the selection being made, the petitioner challenged the same before the Tribunal, which rejected the petitioner’s claim. Petitioner came to this Court and, thereafter, the matter was remanded to the Tribunal for consideration on merit. This time again the Tribunal has refused to grant any relief to the Petitioner. The Tribunal has found that the appointment of Prabhunandan Singh had been cancelled vide letter dated 26.12.2007 of the Block Education Officer, Jamuni but in his place petitioner could not be appointed because the letter dated 06.11.2007 issued by the Principal Secretary, Human Resource Development Department, Government of Bihar, apparently, it was provided that all unfulfilled - 2 - vacancy as existing on 30.11.2007 had to be filled up by fresh recruitment in the year 2008 and no fresh appointments should be made. It is the correctness of this order of the Tribunal, that is, in challenge. Learned counsel for the petitioner draws attention of this Court of the Government circular as referred to above. The circular in clear terms states that if there is any unfulfilled vacancy at the end of 2007 that should not be filled up because that would be taken into account while second round of appointments in the year 2008, but in paragraph-2 thereof, it is clearly provided that this would not come in way of giving effect to the orders of the Tribunal where appointments are challenged. It is submitted and rightly so that the Tribunal forgot to take notice of this part of the circular. From the order of the Tribunal, it is very clear that the appointment of Prabhunandan Singh was rightly cancelled from the order of the Tribunal. It is also clear that as a consequence of that cancellation petitioner became entitled to be selected. If one keeps that in mind and paragraph-2 of the circular aforesaid, the natural consequence would be that the Tribunal was bound to issue orders for appointment of petitioner, which it failed to do. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The concerned Gram Panchayat is directed to appoint petitioner if there still exists vacancy. The order of the Tribunal, thus, stands set aside. Trivedi/ (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)