CAV JUDGMENT

Date : 05-03-2024 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The factual background of the case, in brief, is that the process of selection was undertaken by concerned Gram Panchayat in the year 2006. There is no dispute that the petitioner as well as the private respondent had applied to be employed in the physically handicapped category. The petitioner belongs to unreserved category whereas the respondent no.10 belongs to BC category. The counseling was held on 12.02.2007 and the respondent no. 10 was appointed in the physically disabled category on 13.10.2007. Few complaints were made before the District Magistrate in relation to the process of selection thereafter, the District Magistrate directed the Block Development Officer Sarairanjan, to make inquiry. In the light of the order of the District Magistrate, the BDO registered Case No. 10/2006. The Block Development Officer vide an order dated 19.09.2007 directed for removal of one Niranjan Kumar Roy who was a trained candidate having 48.68% Medha Ank and for appointment of the petitioner. As the petitioner was not appointed, he filed a writ petition being CWJC No. 14564 of 2007 before the Hon’ble High Court which was disposed of on 21.07.2011 relegating the writ petitioner to the District Authority for adjudication upon his grievance. Accordingly, Appeal No. 1624/2012 was filed by the petitioner. The District Authority after hearing both the parties rejected the claim of the petitioner.

3. Being aggrieved by the order of the District Appellate Authority, the same was again challenged by the petitioner in CWJC No. 13236 of 2012 and vide order dated 11.12.2012, the learned Single Judge of the Hon'ble High Court set aside the order passed by the District Authority and again remitted the matter for hearing and disposal afresh in the light of the observation/direction made therein. The District Authority on remand, considered the case of both the parties afresh and came to the conclusion that the petitioner had appeared for counseling on 12.02.2007. The private respondent had higher merit point and therefore, he was entitled to be appointed against the vacancy reserved for the physically handicapped candidates. The petitioner, dissatisfied with the said order, again approached the Hon'ble High Court which was disposed of on 10.11.2017 granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the present Forum for resolution of the dispute. The case of the petitioner is that the order passed by the BDO could not have been challenged before the District Authority. The BDO was the competent authority when the order was passed on 19.09.2007. The petitioner was aware of the said order as the pleading of the private respondent suggests yet the same was not challenged before any superior forum. The respondent had, in fact, not appeared for counseling on 12.02.2007. His name was arbitrarily inserted. The counseling record suggest that it was held on 12.02.2007. The impugned order was passed without complying with the direction/observation of the Hon'ble High Court in order dated

21.07.2011.

4. Learned counsel for the private respondent submits that the petitioner has secured 51.11% marks in his intermediate examination whereas the respondent no.-10 secured 60.33% marks in his respective intermediate examination. The merit panel was prepared by the selection committee after counselling of the candidate wherein name of the respondent no.-10 appears at serial no.-4 under PH category having secured 60.33% marks. Being aggrieved by allotting physically handicap (PH) reserve category to general category, the respondent no.-10 and others raised objection vide objection letter dated 12.03.2007. Pursuant to objection made by the disabled candidates, a three men committee was constituted to make an enquiry in the matter. The inquiry committee vide letter dated 19.09.2007 decided arbitrarily without making any counselling as alleged on 13.09.2007, to appoint the petitioner to which the respondent