ORAL JUDGMENT

(Per: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE)

Date : 05-02-2025 Heard Mr. P.N. Shahi, the learned Senior Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Mithilesh Kumar, learned Advocate for the respondent no. 9. The State is represented by Mr. Anjaneya Singh, learned Advocate.

2. The judgment under challenge is dated

18.03.2024 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 7083 of 2019, whereby the conclusion of the State Appellate Tribunal in favour of respondent no. 9 has been approved and not interfered with, holding that respondent no. 9 would be entitled to be appointed as Panchayat Teacher in the concerned Block as he had more marks than the appellant and both of them came from the Backward Category.

3. The facts of this case need be narrated in short. Against an advertisement issued in the year 2008 for appointment of Panchayat Teachers, the appellant and the respondent along with several others applied. Both of them were successful but in the counselling which was held on 28.02.2009, respondent no. 9 did not appear, leaving the field open for the appellant as the person in Backward Category having obtained highest marks. Precisely for this reason, he was selected and joined as a Panchayat Teacher, wher