IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2983 of 2011 Atm Prakash Tiwari Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors ----------- 2. 23.9.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. It appears that the grievance of the petitioner is that the direction in the order of the District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority dated 27.12.2010 was to appoint respondent No.9 on the roster point 86, but the Panchayat Teachers Selection Committee appointed the respondent No.9 on roster point 87, which did not belong to scheduled castes but to unreserved category, which is not permissible as the petitioner belonging to unreserved category has much higher marks than the respondent No.9. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the action of the appointing authority subsequent to the order dated 27.12.2010 of the District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority, then the statutory remedy available to him is before the Appellate Authority under Rule 18 of the Bihar Panchayat Teachers (Appointment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2006. The writ application is, accordingly, dismissed as not maintainable on account of the bar of alternative statutory 2 remedy. The petitioner shall be at liberty to approach the District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority, if so advised. In case, any such application/appeal is filed by the petitioner, the same shall be considered keeping in view the fact that the petitioner has been pursing his remedy before this Court. VPS ( Ramesh Kumar Datta, J. )