RAGINI SRIVASTAVA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This intra Court appeal arises from a judgment and order passed by a learned Single Judge on 05.02.2015 in CWJC No. 904 of 2014, whereby, while allowing the claim of the writ petitioner for appointment as a Supervisor under the guidelines issued by the Department of Social Welfare for regulating the Anganbari Centres across the State, the learned Single Judge has questioned the appointment of the respondent no. 8 Ragini Srivastava, who is the appellant herein, as according to the learned Single Judge, the appellant has to make way for the appointment of the writ petitioner Sangeeta Kumari. It is because of this observation of the learned Single Judge which has led to filing of the present appeal.

(2.) This appeal was heard on 12.05.2015 when a coordinate bench while issuing notice directed for maintenance of Status quo as regarding the appellant and as a consequence she continues on her post. The appeal was admitted for hearing on 31.07.2015 and it is pursuant to the notice issued that the respondent-writ petitioner has appeared through her counsel.

(3.) This matter was heard on 18.06.2018 and when the learned counsel for the appellant fairly conceded that there is no infirmity in the order of the learned Single Judge, insofar as it upholds the claim of the writ petitioner, and thus even if a direction was to be issued in favour of the respondent-writ petitioner for her appointment as a Supervisor and someone had to make way for her, it had to be the last candidate appointed and not the appellant who was much above in the merit list. It was the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the order in favour of the respondent-writ petitioner could not adversely affect the appointment of the appellant-respondent because she was much above in the merit list. It was also the argument of learned counsel for the appellant that by virtue of the status-quo order as directed by this Court on 12.05.2015, even though the respondent-writ petitioner has been appointed as a Supervisor, none of the appointees, including the appellant-respondent, have been disturbed from their respective appointment as a Supervisor.