RIMA KUMARI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Having heard counsel for the parties as with regard to the following relief:

(2.) The other part of the grievance of the petitioner is pertaining to illegal selection of respondent no. 9 about whom it has been claimed that even when he had secured lesser marks in the qualifying examination, he was favoured by the Mukhiya while eliminating more meritorious candidates including the petitioner securing higher marks. This part of the assertion of the petitioner in paragraph no. 16 of the writ petition reads as follows:

(3.) There is no counter affidavit on behalf of any of the respondents and the counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 9 also does not dispute that the marks secured by respondent no. 9 in the qualifying examination as disclosed in the writ application was 455 as against the petitioner's marks of 530. Counsel for respondent no. 9, however, has tried to explain that whereas the petitioner belongs to general category, respondent no. 9 is of OBC category and therefore, his such selection and appointment despite having secured lower qualifying marks was justified. Counsel for respondent no. 9 in this regard has further explained that owing to an allegation made by the petitioner, the appointment of respondent no. 9 on the post of Shiksha Mitra was cancelled by the Block Development Officer by an order dated 1.4.2008 but the said order was set aside by this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 18513/2008 and therefore, the order of appointment of respondent no. 9 has now become valid and legal in view of the order of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 18513/2008. He would, therefore, submit that there would be no need to go into the question of further enquiry in the allegation made by the petitioner as with regard to anomaly/illegality in the appointment of respondent no. 9. He has further submitted that the District Teachers Appellate Authority created under Rule 18 of 2006 Rules can look into only the complaints arising out of selection and appointment of Panchayat Shikshak and not on the post of Shiksha Mitra and therefore, no one can now be directed to examine the alleged illegality in the selection and appointment of respondent no. 9 on the post of Shiksha Mitra.