SHOBHA KUMARI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has filed this writ application for quashing the selection/appointment of respondent no. 11 made on the post of Panchayat Shikshak in Amiyawar Panchayat within the district of Rohtas. She has further prayed for a direction to the respondents to select/appoint her on the post of Panchayat Shikshak on the basis of documents submitted by her, as she is more meritorious than respondent no. 11. A further prayer has been made to direct the authorities to make enquiry regarding illegal selection/appointment on the post of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra in the Panchayat in question made by respondent nos. 8 and 10 and further direct to the authorities concerned to do the needful, as prescribed by law.

(2.) Short facts, as per her case is that, in the said Panchayat there were eight vacancies for Shiksha Mitra, out of them four were for male candidates and four were for female candidates. Out of the eight, four were to be filled up by general category candidates and rest four were to be filled up by reserved category candidates. Accordingly, an advertisement was published and petitioner applied for selection and appointment. Selection Committee held meeting and considered the applications and a merit/gradation list was published on 17.5.2005. Petitioner was fourth in the merit list of female candidates. The candidate at the first position was overage and the second and third were general category candidates. Hence, petitioner was the first female candidate under reserved category. She had secured 15 points with higher percentage of 69.78% marks in Intermediate. However, respondent No. 11, with only 62.78% marks in Intermediate, was selected and appointed under the backward category. Petitioner came to know about this appointment of respondent no. 11 in the month of November, 2005. Accordingly, she submitted an application to the Block Development Officer, Nasriganj on 18.8.2006 (Annexure-3) raising an objection. A copy of the said application was also sent to the District Magistrate, Rohtas by registered post on 24.8.2006 (Annexure-4). Since she did not come to know about any action taken on her application, she submitted another application to the District Magistrate on 19.9.2007 (Annexure-5). She also filed an application under Right to Information Act before respondent no. 7 with required fee seeking information as to on what basis she had not been selected. In response, she was supplied with only the proceeding of the Selection Committee, the marks sheet and the admit card of respondent no. 11 of Intermediate Examination (Annexure-6 series). But till now no decision has been taken by the respondents on her applications/objections.

(3.) The submission of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner was that the petitioner, having higher percentage of marks in the Intermediate vis-a-vis respondent no. 11, had a right to be selected and appointed in place of respondent no. 11 as a backward category female candidate. Hence, she is entitled for the reliefs prayed for in this writ application. He cited the following judgments for consideration by this Court: