IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4188 of 2008 SMT.NEELU DEVI D/O BHAWANAND MISHRA R/O VILLAGE JAIDEV PATTI, P.O. JAIDEV PATTI P.S. GHAN SHYAMPUR, DISTRICT DARBHANGA. ............Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, DARBHANGA, 2. DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, DARBHANGA, 3. DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, DARBHANGA, 4. BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, GHAN SHAYAMPUR BLOCK, DISTRICT DARBHANGA, 5. URMILA DEVI W/O SHRI PHULENDER JHA, MUKHIYA, JAIDEV PATTI PANCHAYAT, P.S. GHANSHYAMPUR, DISTRICT DARBHANGA, 6. BISHWANATH YADAV, PANCHAYAT SEVAK, JAIDEV PATTI PANCHAYAT, GHANSHYAMPUR, DARBHANGA, 7. SANJAY KUMAR SAH S/O CHANDAR NARAYAN SAH @ CHANDAR SAH, R/O VILLAGE JAINTIPUR DATH, P.S. BAHAIRA, DISTRICT DARBHANGA. ................. Respondents ----------- 04 10.12.2010 Initially the writ petition was filed for quashing the appointment of respondent no. 7 as Panchayat Teacher in Lala Patti Primary School of Jaidev Patti Panchayat of Biraul Circle in the District of Darbhanga and also for direction for appointment of the petitioner as Panchayat Teacher, since in the School in question, one seat was reserved for person having audio disability, hence, the petitioner in spite of being the only disabled candidate, and having qualified, was not appointed, since she was having visual disability. The Mukhiya sought for proper instruction with regard to the filling of the vacancies with candidates proving other disability though the vacancies were marked for audio disabled persons. In response thereof the 2 Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Human Resources Development Department vide letter dated 25.12.2006 as contained in Annexure 7, directed the District Education Superintendent that if the audio and visual impaired persons are not available then as per seniority the said post should be filled up by physically disabled persons. Learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that as per the instructions issued vide Annexure 7, the petitioner ought to have been appointed, because she was the only disabled person under the blind category who had applied and her counseling was performed. Though the petitioner’s named figured at Serial No. 1 in the merit list, but subsequently when the new Panchayat Secretary joined, he in order to accommodate his son and respondent no. 7, who was not deserving person as he had never applied for the appointment, ignored the bonafide claim of the petitioner. During the pendency of the writ application, after thorough enquiry, Block Development Officer vide order dated 10.05.2008 as contained in Annexure 9 cancelled the employment of several other persons including respondent no. 7 but it appears that he issued no directions for issuance of appropriate orders in favour of the petitioner. Since now the appellate authority has been constituted, let the petitioner file an appropriate appeal before the Appellate Authority within a period of eight weeks. It is expected 3 that the Appellate Authority may pass the appropriate order on the appeal of the petitioner within a period of two months of the presentation of appeal in accordance with law. With the aforesaid directions, this writ application is disposed off. Safik ( Dinesh Kumar Singh, J.)