KAMLESH KUMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. P K Shahi, learned Senior Counsel appearing with Mr. Ram Binod Singh, Advocate-on-Record for the appellant, counsel for the State and Mr. Vinod Kumar Kanth, learned Senior Counsel representing the private respondents with the assistance of Mr. Gyan Prakash, advocate on record.

(2.) This intra-Court appeal arises from the judgment and order of a learned Single Judge dated 15.01.2015 allowing the writ petition. The learned Single Judge after quashing the order dated 29.07.2013 passed by the District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority, Saran in Appeal No. 104 of 2011 whereby, the order of the District Magistrate passed on 30.10.2006 upholding the appointment of the private respondent no. 11, had been interfered with, restored the private respondent to his position.

(3.) The pleadings on record would conform that in a selection process initiated for appointment of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra carried out before the Bihar Panchayat Elementary Teachers (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2006 came into force, while the appellant herein was appointed against one such post coming under the General Category, the private respondentwrit petitioner was appointed against the post meant for Extremely Backward Class. The private respondent undisputedly comes from the Backward Category and on such facts coming to surface regarding the caste status of the private respondent that his service was terminated on 16.07.2004. This termination was questioned by the private respondent-writ petitioner in CWJC No. 16334 of 2004 and a learned Single Judge of this Court by judgment and order dated 09.05.2006 relegated the respondent no. 11 before the Collector, Saran at Chapra. The issue was considered by the District Magistrate, Saran at Chapra who vide order bearing Memo No. 1097 dated 30.10.2006 while not finding any fault with the termination order of the respondent-writ petitioner because he was appointed against a post reserved for the Extremely Backward Class, found merit in his case for consideration in the open / unreserved category on merit because he had higher marks in the Matriculation examination which was the prescribed qualification for such appointment and which put him ahead of the appellant. This fact is not in dispute. Consequently, while directing for appointment of the private respondent-writ petitioner against the post meant for open / unreserved category by virtue of his higher marks obtained in Matriculation examination, the appointment of the appellant was disturbed with and consequently set aside.