Patna High CourtCWJC/9745/2013disposed

Md. Nurul Islam v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2016-03-14Mr. Justice Samarendra Pratap Singh2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9745 of 2013 ====================================================== Md. Nurul Islam Son Of Md. Sikander Ali Panchayat Teacher, New Primary School, Chutti Bagh Under Sukhasan Panchayat, P.S. - Barari, District - Katihar .... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State Of Bihar

2. The District Magistrate, Katihar

3. The District Education Officer, Katihar

4. The District Programme Officer (Establishment) Education, Katihar

5. The Block Development Officer, Barari, District - Katihar

6. The Block Extension Officer, Barari, District - Katihar

7. The District Teachers Appointment Appellate Authority, Katihar Through Its Member

8. The Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Raj, Sukhasan, Block - Barari, District - Katihar

9. The Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Raj, Sukhasan, Block - Barari, District - Katihar

10. Vijay Kumar Singh Son Of Sikander Singh Resident Of Gram Panchayat Sukhasan, Ward No. 15, P.S. Barari, District - Katihar

11. Vimal Kumar Son Of Suresh Prasad Resident Of Village Naya Tola Dehariya, P.S. - Town , District - Katihar

12. Raman Kant Jha Son Of Shri Hemkant Jha Resident Of Railway New Quarter No. 457a, Katihar, P.S. Town , District - Katihar .... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner : Mr. Amaresh Kumar Singh, Advocate For the State Mr.Shyam Kishore Sharma, Sr. Advocate, GA 1 For respondent no.8 : Mr.Ajay Kumar, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SAMARENDRA PRATAP SINGH ORAL ORDER 14-03-2016 The petitioner is claiming appointment on the basis of belonging to handicapped category. He has annexed the certificate issued by the Civil Surgeon's office in support of being a handicapped. The petitioner submits that he was even selected by the Niyojan Samiti under handicapped category. However, private respondents filed complaint before the District Teachers Appointment Appellate Authority, Katihar bearing

Patna High Court CWJC No.9745 of 2013 (3) dt.14-03-2016 2/2 Appeal Case No. 2269 of 2011, which was disposed of vide order dated 6.3.2013 holding his appointment to be illegal. The petitioner submits that he has no grievance with private respondents whose claim fall under different category. His grievance is that he is claiming under handicapped category which aspect of the case was not considered by the Appellate authority. He has also referred to a decision in the case of Anant Kumar Vs. State of Bihar, reported in 2001(2) PLJR 551 in support of his case.

I find that the petitioner is claiming under handicapped category which aspect has not already been considered vis-à-vis the case of respondents, I accordingly, remand the matter to the appellate authority (respondent no.7) for consideration and disposal of petitioner's case preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

It will be open for the petitioner to file any further affidavit or documents before respondent no.7. The writ petition is thus disposed of.

Shashi.

(Samarendra Pratap Singh, J) U