The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of reservation principles in employment disputes, emphasizing that in cases of vertical reservation, vacancies have to be filled up first by persons with the highest merit, except for those roster points where there is a special category reserved.

1. Heard Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Gyan Prakash, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. Uma Kant Shukla, learned counsel assisted by Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no. 8; Mr. Siyaram Shahi, learned counsel assisted by Mr. Upendra Kumar Chaubey, learned counsel for the respondent no. 9 and Mr. Arjun Prasad, learned A.C. to S.C. 3 for the State.

2. The petitioner has moved the Court for quashing of order dated 21.03.2012 passed by the District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority, East Champaran (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Authority’) in Case No. 784 of 2011, by which the challenge to the appointment of Panchayat Teachers in Gram Panchayat Raj Raghunathpur made in the year 2008 has been partly interfered with and employment of two persons who have been held to have got appointment on forged certificates have been set aside and against such vacancies the respondents no. 8 and 9 from the general category have been directed to be employed.

3. The petitioner, along with four others, including respondents no. 8 and 9, had moved before the Authority in Case No. 784 of 2011 challenging their non selection on the post of Panchayat Teacher in the year 2008 in Gram Panchayat Raj Raghunathpur. The challenge partially succeeded and the Authority found that two candidates namely, Rajbanshi Prasad and Hemlata had obtained employment on the basis of forged certificates and thus, their selection was set aside. Further, since both of them belonged to the General Category, the respondents no. 8 and 9, who belonged to that category, were directed to be appointed, but the petitioner was not given any relief on the ground that there was no vacant post of the Reserved Category to which the petitioner belonged.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent no. 10, though belonging to the Reserved Category, because of him having higher marks than candidates appointed in the General Category, had to be adjusted against on unreserved/general post and the petitioner was required to be adjusted on the resultant vacant Reserved Category post. He further submitted that even otherwise, the petitioner, as per the merit list prepared, has 73.11 merit marks as compared to that of respondent no. 8, who has only 71.77. Learned counsel submitted that once the petitioner, though belonging to a Reserved Category and having applied under such category, having more merit points compared to the respondent no. 8, any vacancy, except of another Reserved Category, especially in the general/unreserved category, has to be first offered to him and thus, the direction to appoint the respondent no. 8 on such post is contrary to law. Learned counsel further submitted that the respondent no. 8 shall go further down in the merit list as the merit marks allotted to him are in excess due to wrong calculation of the percentage in his Intermediate examination. Learned counsel submitted that though the Bihar Panchayat Primary Teachers (Employment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rules’) provide for reservation, but the actual recruitment on unreserved/general posts would be strictly as per merit, whereas on the Reserved post only a person belonging to that particular reserved category could be given employment. For such proposition, learned counsel has relied upon a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh Kumar Daria v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission reported as A.I.R. 2007 S.C. 3127. Learned counsel submitted that a vital factual aspect of the matter is that one Rajbanshi Prasad, who was also a candidate belonging to the Reserved Category, had been appointed on the General Category post on the basis of having higher merit marks and thus, the same rule should apply in the present case also. He submitted that in the present case, when there is a vacancy of the General Category, merit marks are required to be counted and n