IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11581 of 2008 MD.NAFIS ALAM Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- For the petitioner: Mr Ratan Kumar Advocate For the State : Mr prabhu Narayan Singh, JC to GA IX -- 4. 09.04.2009 Heard leaned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents 3 and 4 to 9 affirmed by the Block Development Officer. The petitioner was an applicant for the post of Panchayat Teacher in Mohanpur Gram Panchayat, Simri Bakhtiyarpur Block in the district of Saharsa in the general category. The select list was published on 4.1.2007. The grievance is that ignoring the fact that he had higher marks in the Intermediate Examination persons with lower marks came to be selected and appointed. The petitioner moved the authorities when the matter was entitled into. The Block Education Extension Officer after enquiry filed his report on 6.10.2007 stating that the allegations of the petitioner was correct that denial of consideration to him was wrong. The counter affidavit filed has been affirmed by the Block Development Officer. On the date that the selection took place, the Block Development Officer was the statutory authority competent to enquire in to the issues of appointment of Panchayat Teacher under Bihar Panchayat Teachers (Appointment and Service Condition) Rules 2006. The statutory authority in his counter affidavit at Para 5(ii) states that he enquired into the matter through the Block Education extension Officer who reported illegalities committed in the appointment and in pursuance of which the illegal appointments had been cancelled. The counter affidavit then states, “After cancellation of appointment of aforesaid 4 candidates the petitioner was entitled for appointment but the H.R.D., Bihar, Patna has issued letter No. 06.11.2007 stating there in that after 320.11.2007 the appointment cannot be done without the permission of the Department”. The letter dated 6.11.2007 is at Annexure „A‟ to the counter affidavit. It does not deal with a fact situation obtaining as the present case where a person has wrongly been denied appointment and neither does it satisfy the reason for the cut off date of 30.11.2007 with regard to cases where on enquiry the appointment has been found to be illegal also confirming that a genuine candidate was wrongly denied consideration. Once the persons wrongly appointed have been terminated and the vacancy becomes available the petitioner is entitled to be considered in accordance with the findings of the respondents themselves on the enquiry conducted by them in pursuance of his allegations. Let such consideration be done by the respondent no. 2 and appropriate orders passed with regard to the petitioner within a maximum period of four weeks from the date of receipt and/or production of a copy of this order. The petitioner shall be deemed to have been appointed from the date that the appointment was wrongly denied for purposes of seniority only. If the respondent no. 2 proposes to deny the relief to the petitioner, he shall be obliged to furnish to the petitioner the reasons and materials on which he proposes to deny the benefits, grant opportunity to the petitioner to meet the same and then pass a reasoned and speaking order of the grounds on which the relief was denied. The writ application stands allowed. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)