NILU AGRAWAL, J.

This intra-court appeal arises out of the order dated 25.07.2012, passed in C.W.J.C. No. 12781 of 2012 (Md. Soharab Vs. The State of Bihar and others) by which the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition holding that the petitioner was appointed as a Panchayat Teacher (untrained) in the Extremely Backward Category (EBC) and not under Physically Handicapped Category and respondent No. 12 Md. Jakir Hussain being more meritorious, the District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority, Vaishali (hereinafter referred to as the Authority) has rightly rejected the claim of the appellant- writ petitioner in favour of respondent No. 12.

2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the State and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 12 and with the consent of the parties, this appeal is heard and is being disposed of at this stage itself.

3. Appellant- writ petitioner was appointed as a Panchayat Teacher in Gram Panchayat Raj Mathna Milk under Chehrakala block in the district of Vaishali on 29.11.2006. He was terminated on the ground that his intermediate vocational qualification was not acceptable. However, he came to be reinstated in pursuance to the orders of this Court.

4. It is relevant to mention here that the vacancy was 10 in number, category-wise between roster points 26 to 35 and the appellant was appointed on roster point 32 which was reserved for EBC category. Subsequently, it was found that one Md. Jakir Hussain (respondent No. 12) had secured more marks i.e. 68.11% in the EBC category and the appellant-writ petitioner having secured less marks i.e. 67.40% could not have been appointed at roster point 32, which was reserved for EBC category. He was removed from the post of Panchayat Teacher and respondent No. 12 was appointed in his place. Against this termination appellant moved this Court but was relegated to the Appellate Authority to vent his grievance. The Authority after hearing the appellant and respondent No. 12 passed order dated 16.07.2011 rejecting the claim of the appellant- writ petitioner holding that respondent No. 12 being more meritorious under EBC category and the appellant having been appointed under EBC category being less meritorious with lesser marks could not have been appointed. The appellant- writ petitioner challenged the order of the Authority which refused to interfere with his removal from the post of Panchayat Teacher, which was upheld by the learned Single Judge holding that there was no occasion to interfere with the findings of the Authority as there was no material to show that the appellant was not an applicant under the EBC category but was an applicant for physically handicapped category and although roster point 34 as per the reservation policy was reserved for physically handicapped category candidate, appellant- writ petitioner was appointed at roster point 32 which belonged to EBC category.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-writ petitioner submits that the appellant was a physically challenged person having orthopedic problem and belonged to EBC category. He applied for selection as a Panchayat Teacher and was thus eligible at roster point 34 reserved for handicapped category but being EBC category he was then deemed to be a handicap of EBC category and thus he was validly appointed at roster point 32. It has been submitted that 3% reservation is required to be made in respect of physically challenged persons and, accordingly, the positions are fixed. The basis on which the selection was based upon is evident from Annexures-6 and 8 of the writ petition. Annexure-6 of the writ petition is the list of 10 selected candidates and the appellant- writ petitioner is shown as being appointed under EBC category. Annexure-8 is the second list dated 10.12.2006 showing appellant-writ petitioner to be already appointed under EBC category and the remarks column showing handicap (Viklang). Thus, he submits that th