ANITA KUMARI DAUGHTER OF LATE PREM SHANKAR MISHRA, WIFE OF SHRI UMASHANKAR MISHRA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE & P.O. RAJPUR, POLICE STATION Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Umesh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.C. to Govt. Pleader - 22 and Sri Tej Bahadur Singh, learned senior counsel assisted by Sri Ranjan Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for private respondent i.e. respondent no. 15.

(2.) The petitioner has invoked writ jurisdiction of this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, with a prayer to quash an order, contained in Memo No. 833 dated 10-08-2010 (Annexure - 4 to the writ petition), whereby Case No. 40 of 2010 filed by respondent no. 15 was allowed by the Member, District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority, Siwan (hereinafter referred to as the 'District Appellate Authority'). The petitioner has also prayed for quashing of an order, contained in Memo No. 1180 dated 24-12-2010 (Annexure - 5 to the writ petition). By the said order, the Member, District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority, Siwan has rejected the case of the petitioner i.e. Case No. 142 of 2010. The petitioner has further prayed for directing the concerned respondent(s) to appoint her after cancelling the appointment of respondent no. 15.

(3.) Short fact of the case is that in the year 2005, applications for appointment for the post of 'Shiksha-Mitra' in Gram Panchayat Raj - Rajpur, Block - Raghunathpur, District - Siwan were entertained and finally, a list of six persons was prepared. Out of six, five persons joined. Thereafter, respondent no. 15 approached the authority concerned for being appointed as Shiksha Mitra and finally, she approached this Court by filing a writ petition, vide C.W.J.C. No. 1001 of 2007, which stood dismissed on 28-08-2007. Thereafter, the respondent no. 15 approached the District Appellate Authority and her case was numbered as Case No. 40 of 2010. On the basis of report of Panchayat Secretary dated 28-07-2010, the District Appellate Authority noticed that one of the candidate from General category namely Pratibha Kumari had not given her joining and that post remained vacant and thereafter, direction was issued to appoint the respondent no. 15 against the said vacant post, vide Annexure - 4 to the writ petition. Subsequently, the petitioner approached the authority concerned and finally, approached the District Appellate Authority and her case was registered as Case No. 142 of 2010. The petitioner claimed that she was having higher marks than the respondent no. 15 of the present case and as such, a prayer was made to direct the respondent(s) to appoint her in place of respondent no. 15. The appeal preferred by the petitioner was primarily rejected on the ground that it was time-barred. Thereafter, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.