MANJU BALA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Ms. Nilima Sinha for the petitioner, Mr. Jainendra Kumar Singh, learned Assistant Counsel to Govt. Advocate No. X for respondent nos. 1 and 2, and Mr. Lalit Kishore, learned AAG -III for respondent nos. 3 and 4. We have not felt the necessity of issuing notice to respondent no. 5 in view of the nature of the order that we are going to pass. This writ petition is directed against the notification dated 7.12.2004 (Annexure -3), issued by the Government of Bihar, in the Department of Human Resources (Higher Education), whereby respondent no. 5 has been appointed as Director of Prakrit Jain Sastra and Ahinsa Sodh Sansthan.

(2.) WE have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. The respondent Bihar Public Service Commission had issued advertisement which had appeared on 20.9.2003 in Dainik Jagran, a local daily (Annexure -1), inviting applications for appointment to the post of the Director of the institution. The petitioner, a Lecturer in the institution, submitted her application for consideration. On a consideration of the merits of the eligible candidates, the Commission had recommended the case of respondent no. 5 for appointment to the post of Director, vide letter of recommendation dated 17.6.2004, followed by her appointment. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed on record a copy of the letter of recommendation during the course of her submissions. Relevant portion of the letter of recommendation is reproduced hereinbelow for the facility of quick reference:†''

(3.) AGGRIEVED by the letter of recommendation, and the impugned order, the petitioner had submitted a representation before the State Government which has been rejected by order dated 11.1.2008 (Annexure -4), leading to the present writ petition. It appears to us that the question of equivalence of Acharya vis -a -vis the degree of M.A. was considered by the Commission as well as by the State Government, and it has been found that the qualification of Acharya has been recognized by the State Government as equivalent to the degree of M.A. Secondly, the Commission found respondent no. 5 fit for the post and recommended him for appointment to the post. Thirdly, the State Government considered the entire range of grievances of the petitioner and rejected the same by the said order dated 11.1.2008 (Annexure -4) with reasons. It appears to us that the representation has been rejected for valid reasons. Fourthly, the impugned order was issued on 7.12.2004, respondent no. 5 assumed charge of the office, and it is too late to interfere with the same. Settled affairs cannot be unsettled in the manner suggested by the petitioner. We, therefore, do not wish to interfere in this matter.