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 w