ORAL ORDER Annexure-1 is the order of the District Teachers Appointment Appellate Authority, Rohtas which has been challenged in the present writ application. This order was passed on the direction of the High Court when petitioner was given liberty to move the said Appellate Authority. Impugned order is dated 3.2.2011. 2. Consistent case of the petitioner all along has been that he was an applicant for the post of Panchayat teacher. Counseling was done and he had every eligibility to be appointed on the post as such as he had 67.11% marks but on the spacious plea that he did not turn up on the date of issuance of appointment letter, person with lesser marks, namely, respondent no. 8 Md. Imran with 63% marks was appointed by the said Panchayat. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there was deliberate mischief on the part of the Panchyat concerned to deny the benefit of appointment despite petitioner having many per cent higher marks than the appointed candidate, namely, respondent no. 8 Md. Imran. There is material to show that he had appeared along with Md. Imran for receiving appointment letter but the Panchayat authorities avoided or evaded issuance of latter to the petitioner and surreptitiously appointed respondent no. 8. Both of them belong to the extremely backward class and they were claimant to the same post on which the petitioner was denied the appointment. 4. It is the contention of the learned counsel representing petitioner that the Appellate Authority has committed an error by recording and holding, without any material being available, that petitioner did not appear on the date fixed for issuance of appointment letter and this was the reason for appointment of private respondent no. 8. This fact has been held to be a gospel truth by the Appellate Authority on the basis of the assertion or statement made by the Panchayat rather than on the assertion made contrary to that by the petitioner. 5. It is not a case where individual notices were required to be given as such. To that extent the Appellate Authority could be correct that there was news paper publication giving information about the dates on which appointment letters were to be distributed. 5. It is not a case where individual notices were required to be given as such. To that extent the Appellate Authority could be correct that there was news paper publication giving information about the dates on which appointment letters were to be distributed. The question is whether any foul play was deliberately practiced by the Panchayat concerned in not giving appointment letter to the petitioner even though he participated because the Panchayat was keen in accommodating some body else having lesser marks in the present case. 6. Learned counsel representing private respondent no. 8 tried to impress upon the Court that his client was claiming appointment in a different category and he had no clash of interest with the petitioner. One was claimant under the general category and the other was under the extremely backward category. 7. Attention of the Court has been drawn to page 3 of the said order where roster clearance has been dealt with and there is a finding that both petitioner as well as private respondent were claimant under reserved category of extremely backward class. Therefore, the fine distinction which is sought to be made on behalf of the private respondent seems to be contrary to record. The Appellate Authority has erred by trying to put blame on the petitioner for not turning up for receiving appointment letter on the basis of statement of such people who were behind the mischief in denying the benefit of appointment to the petitioner. The Court feels that dual standards have been applied in the matter because petitioner’s consistent view or assertion is that he was present on the date fixed by the government i.e. 13.08.2010 and 14.08.2010 but, finding no other way, ignoring the claim of the petitioner who had higher merit, the plea of his not turning up was taken. 8. Another contention of the learned counsel also merits consideration based on a decision of this Court rendered in the case of Chitranjan Kumar Singh Vs. State of Bihar and others reported in 2010(4) PLJR, 184 read with Rule 9 and the proviso thereto where Panchayat is obliged to send letter of appointment by registered post to the selected candidate and their turning up personally before the Panchayat is not pre-requisite. 9. The order of the Appellate Authority, to that extent, seems to be erroneous and deserves to be quashed. This writ application is allowed. 9. The order of the Appellate Authority, to that extent, seems to be erroneous and deserves to be quashed. This writ application is allowed. The petitioner does have a good right of appointment in place of private respondent no. 8 Md. Imran.