Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 256 (PAT)

Abha Kumari v. State of Bihar

2013-02-25

AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, R.M.DOSHIT

body2013
ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 1. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 7th February 2012 passed by the learned single Judge in CWJC No. 11233 of 2010, the writ petitioner has preferred this Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent. 2. It appears that pursuant to the 2005 selection process the appellant was appointed as Panchayat Shiksha Mitra under the Gram Panchayat, Saisad, Block Dinara, District – Rohtas. Her appointment as Panchayat Shiksha Mitra came to be challenged by the petitioner Renu Kumari before the District Magistrate, Rohtas. As the District Magistrate, Rohtas did not consider the objection raised by the writ petitioner; she approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution in CWJC No. 3379 of 2009. 3. This Court (Coram: Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.), under order dated 20th March 2009, directed the District Magistrate to consider the matter and do the needful. 4. Pursuant to the said direction, the District Magistrate, under his order dated 8th January 2010, recorded a finding that the complainant Renu Kumari had secured 480 marks out of 900 marks in the compulsory/optional subjects whereas the appellant had secured 444 marks out of 900 marks in the compulsory/optional subjects. The appellant had obtained 484 marks out of 1000 marks including the vocational subject opted for by her. Thus, the complainant Renu Kumari had higher merit than the appellant and she should have been selected and appointed as Panchayat Teacher. In view of the said finding, the District Magistrate directed to cancel the appointment of the appellant. The said order was challenged by the appellant before the District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority, Rohtas in Case No. 22 of 2010. The said Appellate Authority, under its order dated 25th March 2010, refused to entertain the appeal as time barred. The Appellate Authority also observed that it had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. The challenge to the said order in above CWJC No. 11233 of 2010 has failed before the learned single Judge. Therefore, this Appeal. 5. The learned single Judge has upheld the finding of the District Magistrate that only those marks secured out of 900 marks in the compulsory/optional subjects were required to be taken into consideration while considering the inter se merits of the candidates. Therefore, this Appeal. 5. The learned single Judge has upheld the finding of the District Magistrate that only those marks secured out of 900 marks in the compulsory/optional subjects were required to be taken into consideration while considering the inter se merits of the candidates. At the relevant time, the concerned Gram Panchayat had committed mistake in counting the marks obtained by the appellant in the vocational subject. 6. Learned advocate Mr. K.M. Joseph has appeared for the appellant. He has submitted that at the relevant time there were no clear instructions in respect of preparation of merit list. Many a Gram Panchayats had, therefore, calculated the aggregate marks obtained by the candidates including the marks obtained in vocational / additional subjects. Thus, there were two possible views. The appellant, being the beneficiary, her appointment should not have been cancelled. 7. We see no merit in this Appeal. 8. We agree with the learned single Judge that only those marks secured out of 900 marks in compulsory / optional subjects should have been taken into consideration. On the facts of the present case, not only the respondent no. 8 has secured higher marks out of 900 marks in compulsory / optional subjects, if the aggregate marks were taken into consideration including the marks for vocational subjects then also the appellant had secured less percentage of marks considering the marks obtained by her out of total 1000 marks. 9. In above view of the matter, the respondent no. 8 had higher merit than the appellant. The appointment of the appellant has rightly been cancelled. 10. No case for interference is made out. 11. The Appeal is dismissed in limine. 12. Interlocutory Application stands disposed of.