Dismissed

Sanju Kumari @ Sanju Devi v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC4 Aug 2015CWJC/11739/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petitioner challenged her removal from the post of Anganbadi Sevika after a less eligible candidate was selected. The Court held that pursuant to applicable guidelines, optional subject marks were ineligble and the low marks of the successful rival justified her selection. Consequently, the writ was dismissed and the order of the accountability authority was affirmed. No relief was granted.

What did the court decide?

Writ application dismissed; order dated 19.12.2014 of District Programme Officer affirmed; no quashing of appeal order.

Sanju Kumari @ Sanju Devi Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors. — Service and Employment | Patna HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11739 of 2015

¶2

====================================================== Sanju Kumari @ Sanju Devi .... .... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar & Ors .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sharda Nand Jha, Adv. Mr. Ranjan Kumar Jha, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Ashok Kumar Choudhary- AAG13 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MIHIR KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 2 04-08-2015 Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ application reads as follows:-

¶3

“That this writ application is being filed for issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dt. 24.06.2015 passed by respondent Deputy Director, Welfare, Bhagalpur Division, District Bhagalpur in Misc Appeals No. 01/2015-16 said appeal filed by the respondent no. 8 has been allowed and order dt. 19.12.2014 passed by District Programme Officer has been ste aside and terminated to the petitioner on the post of Sevika and issued direction to the respondent C.D.P.O., Jagdishpur issued selection in the name of the respondent no. 8, on the ground, petitioner has lesser percentage marks to respondent no. 8 and further pleased to affirm the order dt 19.12.2014 passed by District Programme Officer by which rejected the claim of respondent no. 8, who challenge the selection of the petitioner by way of Misc. Appeal no. 57/2011-12 before Collector, said appeal passed order dt. 27.09.2013 by the Collector and directed to District Programme Officer, Bhagalpur to consider the case of the respondent no. 8 and thereafter, order dt. 19.12.2012 passed by the District Programme Officer in Mis. (Anganbari) Case No. 1/2013-14 and further give other legal consequential benefits attached to post.”

¶4

Mr. Sharda Nand Mishra, learned counsel

¶5

Patna High Court CWJC No.11739 of 2015 (2) dt.04-08-2015

¶6

¶7

appearing on behalf of the petitioner in support of the aforementioned prayer has straightway sought to question the findings recorded by the Commissioner in his appellate order as with regard to the petitioner being inferior candidate on merits. According to him, such finding was recorded by the Commissioner by omitting to look into the marksheet of the petitioner, which has been produced by her in this Court in the writ petition.

¶8

Learned counsel for the respondents on other hand has submitted that from the marksheet of the petitioner itself it would become clear that she was not entitled to be appointed as against a better candidate namely, respondent no. 8 whose percentage was 45.3 per cent in the matriculation examination.

¶9

Mr. Mishra in reply had tried to make out a case that the petitioner having obtained 96 marks in the optional subject will be entitled for its being taken into consideration for computing the total percentage of the petitioner in the matriculation examination.

¶10

Unfortunately, such submission of Mr. Mishra

¶11

Patna High Court CWJC No.11739 of 2015 (2) dt.04-08-2015

¶12

¶13

cannot be accepted in view of the specific provision made in clause-5 of the Anganbadi Sevika/Sahaika Guidelines, relating to appointment on the post of Anganbadi Sevika:-

¶14

^^5- lsfodk ds fy, es/kk lwph dk fu/kkZj.k& 5-1 es/kk lwph ds fu/kkZj.k esa eSfVzd vFkok led{k ijh{kk esa izkIrkad ds izfr'kr dks vk/kkj j[kk tk;sxkA ijarq ,slh x.kuk ds le; vfrfjDr fo"k;ksa esa izkIr vadksa dks 'kkfey ugha fd;k tk;sxkA

¶15

5-2 bUVj mRrh.kZ vH;fFkZ;ksa ds fy, 7¼lkr½ cksul vad fn;s tk,xa rFkk Lukrd mRrhZ.k vH;fFkZ;ksa dks 7 ¼lkr½ vfrfjDr cksul vad fn;s tk,axsA

¶16

5-3 blds vykok lsfodk ds es/kk lwph ds fu/kkZj.k esa fuEukafdr vfrfjDr cksul vad fn;s tk;saxsA

¶17

¼d½ fo/kok@ifjR;drk &7 vad

¶18

¼[k½ fodykax &5 vad ¼x½ lgkf;dk & 5 vad

¶19

5-4 mEehnokjksa dh ,d es/kk lwph eSfVzd vFkok led{k ijh{kk esa izkIr vad ds vuqlkj loZizFke fofgr izi= esa

¶20

rS;kj dh tk,xhA blds ckn dafMdk 5-2 vkSj 5-3 ds vuqlkj izkIr dqy cksul vadksa dks izkIr iznRr vad esa tksM+dj lEiw.kZ es/kk vad fudkydj es/kk lwph fofgr izi=

¶21

^x* esa rS;kj dh tk,xh ,oa mlesa ls lokZf/kd es/kk vad

¶22

okys mEehnokj dk p;u fd;k tk,xkA ¼es/kk lwph dk fofgr izi= vuqyXud ^x* layXu½

¶23

5-5 dafMdk 5-4 ds vuqlkj rS;kj es/kk lwph es nks ;k vf/kd mEehnokjksa ds leku vad dh fLFkfr esa izkFkfedrk fuEu dze esa nh tk;sxh&

¶24

Patna High Court CWJC No.11739 of 2015 (2) dt.04-08-2015

¶25

¶26

1- fo/kok

¶27

2- ifjRdrk

¶28

3- fodykax

¶29

4- lgkf;dk

¶30

fVIi.kh& fo/kok mEehnokj ¼llqjky@ek;ek esa jg jgh gS½ dks vius ifr dh e`R;q izek.k i= rFkk iquZfookg ugh adjus laca/kh eqf[k;k@okMZ lnL; ¼'kgjh {ks=½ dk izek.k i= vuqyXud ^d* esa tek djuk vfuok;Z gksxkA blh izdkj ifjR;drk mEehnokj dks Hkh vius ifjR;Drk gksus dk eqf[k;k@okMZ lnL; ¼'kgjh {ks=½ ls izkIr izek.k i= vuqyXud ^[k* esa tek djuk gksxkA vuqyXud ^d* ,oa ^[k* okMZ dks vke lHkh dh frfFk ls ,d lIrkg iwoZ tek djuk vfuok;Z gksxkA

¶31

5-6 es/kk fu/kkZj.k ds laca/k esa lHkh izdkj dh vkifRr;ksa dk fujkdj.k cky fodkl ifj;kstuk inkf/kdkjh }kjk es/kk lwph ds izdk'ku dh frfFk ls rhu fnu ds vanj dj lwpuk ftyk izksxzke dk;kZy; dks ns nh tk;sxhA**

¶32

From the aforementioned provision on the

¶33

basis of which selection on the post of Anganbadi Sevika has to be made, there is no dispute that the marks obtained by a candidate in the extra paper has not to be taken into account. Once this aspect becomes clear, there will be no difficulty for the petitioner to make out any other case because she has obtained only 367 marks out of 900, which will make her to obtain 40.88 per cent whereas the marks of respondent no. 8 is 45.3 per cent.

¶34

Patna High Court CWJC No.11739 of 2015 (2) dt.04-08-2015

¶35

¶36

Let it be noted that from the marks-sheet of the petitioner, it becomes clear that when she had appeared in the Annual Secondary Examination, she had secured the following marks:-

¶37

Subject
Hindi
Sanskrit
English

¶38

Subject	Total Marks	Pass Marks	Marks obtained
Hindi	150	45	60
Sanskrit	150	45	81
English	150	45	30
Math	150	45	05
S.Sc.	150	45	69
Science	150	45	45

¶39

On the basis of the aforesaid marks, she was shown to have failed because of her not passing in the subject of English and Math. The petitioner, thereafter, had appeared in the compartmental examination in which she had cleared the two subjects and had obtained

¶40

marks as follows:-

¶41

Subject	Total Marks	Pass Marks	Marks
			obtained
English	150	45	48
Math	150	45	64

¶42

Thus, on the basis of compartmental examination, she was declared to have passed the Annual Secondary Examination.

¶43

If now the marks of the Matriculation as per

¶44

Patna High Court CWJC No.11739 of 2015 (2) dt.04-08-2015

¶45

¶46

the rules, quoted above, have to calculated, her marks

¶47

would be as follows:-

¶48

Subject	Total Marks	Pass Marks	Marks obtained
Hindi	150	45	60
Sanskrit	150	45	81
English	150	45	48
Math	150	45	64
S.Sc.	150	45	69
Science	150	45	45
	900		367

¶49

As against the marks of the petitioner of 40.88%, her selection by the Aam Sabha for the post of Anganbari Sevika was made by showing her to have earned 458 marks i.e. 50.8% whereas in the order of the Collector in Misc. (Anganbari) Case No. 57 /2011-12 dated 27.9.2012, it was recorded that the District Programme Officer, Bhagalpur and Child Development Project Officer, Jagdishpur, in their enquiry report, had shown the petitioner to obtain 46.44% marks as against the respondent no.8 securing 45.3% marks. The Collector of the district, on an application filed by the respondent no.8 against the selection and appointment of the petitioner, had, therefore, found obvious discrepancy specially when it was found from the record that the

¶50

Patna High Court CWJC No.11739 of 2015 (2) dt.04-08-2015

¶51

¶52

petitioner in her application for the post of Anganbari Sevika had claimed to have obtained 493 marks in her Matriculation examination and the weightage, as per the guideline for the appointment on the post of Anbanbari Sevika for intermediate examination passed by the respondent no.8, already quoted above, was not even taken into consideration. The Collector of the district, therefore, in the order dated 27.9.2013 had remitted the matter back to the District Programme Officer, Bhagalpur for re-examining the marks of the petitioner vis-à-vis respondent no.8 as would be evident from the relevant portion of the order of the Collector, which reads as follows:-

¶53

^^vkosfndk ,oa ljdkj ds fo}ku vf/koDrk dks lfoLrkj lqukA vfHkys[k esa miyC/k dkxtkrksa o fuEu U;k;ky; vfHkys[k dk voyksdu fd;k vkSj bl fu"d"kZ ij igqaprk gwW fd iz'uxr vkaxuokM+h dsUnz esa lsfodk in ds p;u gsrq vkelHkk fnukad 10-12-09 dks vk;ksftr fd;k x;k ftlesa p;u lfefr }kjk p;u izfdz;k iw.kZ djrs gq, foi{kh&2 latw dqekjh ifr Jh ujs'k 'kekZ dk p;u eSfVzd ¼iwjd½ ikl izkIrkad 458 ;kfu 50-8 izfr'kr ds vk/kkj ij p;u fd;k x;k gS tcfd vkosfndk dk vkjksi gS fd dEikVZesUVy ijh{kk ls ikl fd;k x;k gS tks ekU; ugha gSA lgh ;g gS fd dEikVesUVy ijh{kk esa flQZ ikl fd;k tkrk gS fMfHktu

¶54

Patna High Court CWJC No.11739 of 2015 (2) dt.04-08-2015

¶55

¶56

ugha gksrk gS ijUrq es/kk vad izfr'kr ekU; gSa foi{kh la-02 ds dEikVZesuVy ls ikl vad dk izkIrkad 50-8 izfr'kr p;u lfefr }kjk fd;k x;k gS tcfd ftyk izksxke inkf/kdkjh] Hkkxyiqj ,oa cky fodkl ifj;kstuk inkf/kdkjh txnh'kiqj }kjk tkap izfrosnu esa es/kk vad 46-44 izfr'kr lgh crk;k tk jgk gS vkSj vkosfndk dk izkIrkad 45-3 izfr'kr gSa p;fur lafodk latw dqekjh ds izkIrkad izfr'kr e s a fHkUurk gS ftldk fujkdj.k muds ewy vad i= ds voyksdu ls fd;k tk ldrk gSA nkf[ky vad i= viBuh; gSA

¶57

lcls vge rF; ;g gS fd foi{kh la0&2 ds ifr dk uke lqcks/k 'kekZ gS ¼oksVj vkbZ dkbZ ds vuqlkj½ tcfd vkelHkk iath esa foi{kh&2 latw dqekjh ds ifr dk uke ujs'k 'kekZ mfYyf[kr fd;k x;k gS tcfd ujs'k 'kekZ firk gSa nwljk vge rF; ;g gS fd vkosfndk ds baVjehfM,V mRrhZ.k ijh{kk ds ;ksX;rk ij fopkj ugha fd;k x;kA vf/kdre ;ksX;rk okys vkosfndk dks izkFkfedrk fn;k tkuk visf{kr FkkA rhljk vge rF; gS fd foi{kh la0&02 dk eSfVzd vad vke lHkk iath esa 458 gksud dk mYys[k fd;k x;k gS tcfd foi{kh la0&2 ds vkaxuokM+h lsfodk dh fu;qfDr gsrq vkosfnr vkosnu i= esa eSfVZd vad 493 vafdr fd;k x;k gSA Li"Vr% iz'uxr vkaxuokM+h dsUnz ds lsfodk fu;qfDr esa vfu;ferrk ifjyf{kr gksrh gSa pwafd foi{kh la0&2 oRrZeku okn esa vuqifLFkr gSA

¶58

vr% mijksDr fLFkfr;ksa o ifjfLFkfr;ksa ds leh{kksijkUr fu"d"kZr% oRrZeku okn dks fo}ku ftyk izksxzke inkf/kdkjh Hkkxyiqj ds U;k;ky; esa lEiszf"kr ¼Remand½ fd;k tkrk gS rFkk mUgsa funs'k fn;k tkrk gS fd iz'uxr vkaxuokM+h dsUnz dh p;fur lsfodk ds eSfVzd izek.k i= dk lgh es/kk vad dk vkdyu ewy vad izek.k i= ds tkapksijkUr foi{kh la0&2 ds i{k dks lqudj fof/k lEer vkns'k ikfjr djsaxsA

¶59

Patna High Court CWJC No.11739 of 2015 (2) dt.04-08-2015

¶60

¶61

vkns'k dh izfr vuqikyukFkZ HkstsaA ys[kkfir ,oa la'kksf/kr

¶62

g0@& g0@& lekgRrkZ lekgRrkZ Hkkxyiqj Hkkxyiqj** 13. It appears that the District Programme Officer

¶63

in compliance of the aforesaid order of the Collector, Bhagalpur dated 27.9.2013, had undertaken the exercise of re-evaluation of the marks of the petitioner vis-à-vis respondent no.8 and by his order dated 18.12.2014/19.12.2014 he had held that the total marks of the petitioner 458 against her claim of 493 was correct whereas the respondent no.8 having obtained only 381 marks in the matriculation despite being given weightage for Intermediate would lead only to 45.3% and, as such, the selection of the petitioner as a better candidate on merit did not require any interference. The relevant portion of the order of the District Programme Officer, Bhagalpur reads as follows:-

¶64

^^bl okn esa vkosfndk rFkk foi{kh la[;k 2 dh lacaf/kr i{kksa ds dFkuksa dks lquk x;kA i{kksa }kjk fyf[kr cgl Hkh nkf[ky fd;k x;k gS rFkk nLrkost Hkh nkf[ky fd;s x;s gSA foi{kh la[;k 2 ds }kjk vkosfndk ds vkifRr;ksa dks xyr

¶65

Patna High Court CWJC No.11739 of 2015 (2) dt.04-08-2015

¶66

¶67

,oa fujk/kkj crkrs gq, p;u dks fu;ekuqdqy crk;k x;kA bl lanHkZ esa lekgRrkZ egksn; }kjk ikfjr fnukad 27-092013 ds vkns'k esa fufgr fcUnqvksa dk mYys[k djuk vko';d gSA lekgRrkZ egksn; }kjk fuEufyf[kr rhu vge fcUnq mBk;s x;s gSA

¶68

¼1½ foi{kh la[;k 2 ds ifr dk uke

¶69

¼2½ vkosfndk ds bUVjehfM,V mRrhZ.k ijh{kk ij fopkj ugha fd;k tkuk rFkk

¶70

¼3½ foi{kh la[;k 2 dk eSfVzd vad vkelHkk iath esa 458 gksus dk mYys[k fd;k tkuk tcfd muds }kjk vkosfnr vkosnu i= eas eSfVzd vad 493 vafdr FkkA

¶71

bUgha fo"kerkvksa ds en~nsutj lekgrkZ egksn; }kjk foi{kh la[;k 2 dks lqudj ,oa ewy vad izek.k i= ds tkapksijkUr es/kk vad dk vkdyu dj vkns'k ikfjr djus dk funs'k fn;k x;k FkkA

¶72

foi{kh la[;k 2 }kjk lefiZr eSfVzd dk ewy izek.k i= rFkk okf"kZd ,oa iqjd ijh{kk dk vad i= dk voyksdu fd;kA ewy izek.k i= esa firk dk uke ujs'k 'kekZ vafdr gSA muds }kjk lefiZr vkosnu i= ds dkWye la[;k 3 esa firk@ifr dk uke esa ^^Jh ujs'k 'kekZ** vafdr gSa ;g lgh izrhr gksrk gS D;ksafd mDr dkWye esa firk 'kq} dkVk ughas x;k gSA vkelHkk iath rFkk rFkk vkosnu i= esa vafdr izkIrkad esa Li"V vUrj gSA

¶73

vkosfndk ds vad i= ls Li"V gS fd os eSfVzd okf"kZd ijh{kk o"kZ 1987 esa r`rh; Js.kh eas mRrhZ.k gqbZ Fkh vkSj mudk

¶74

dqy izkIrkad 381 FkkA foi{kh la[;k 2 latw dqekjh 1994 dh okf"kZd ijh{kk esa cSBh Fkh ijUrq os vaxzsth ,oa xf.kr esa Qsy Fkh] mudk izkIrk a d Hkh vad i= esa 381 n'kkZ;k x;k gSA ;s iwjd ijh{kk esa nksuksa fo"k; esa ikl gqbZA okf"kZd ,oa iwjd ijh{kk esa izkIr vadksa dk dqy ;ksx 493 foi{kh la[;k 2 }kjk

¶75

Patna High Court CWJC No.11739 of 2015 (2) dt.04-08-2015

¶76

¶77

vius vkosnu eas vafdr fd;k x;k gS tcfd es/kk lwph esa 458 vad vafdr gS tks lgh gSA

¶78

tgka rd vkosfndk rFkk foi{kh la[;k 2 ds 'kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk dk iz'u gS vkosfndk dh 'kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk fuf'pr :i ls foi{kh la[;k 2 latw dqekjh ls vf/kd gSA

¶79

mYys[kuh; gS fd vkelHkk dh dk;ZokbZ ds voyksdu ls Li"V gksrk gS fd izLrko la[;k 2 ds dzekad 5 esa vkosfndk dk uke vafdr gS ftles vkosfndk ds eSfVazd ,oa vkbZ0,0 dh ppkZ dh x;h gSA es/kk lwph esa vkbZ0,0 dk cksul vad tksM+k x;k gSA bl izdkj vkosfndk uwru 'kekZ dk es/kk vad 45-3 izfr'kr gksrk gSA tcfd p;fur lsfodk dk es/kk vad 50-8 izfr'kr gSA

¶80

vkosfndk uwru 'kekZ ,oa foi{kh la[;k 2 }kjk lefiZr vad i=ksa ,oa izek.k i=ksa vkelHkk dh dk;ZokbZ iath dh Nk;kizfr ds voyksdu ds i'pkr rFkk lHkh lacaf/kr rF;ksa ds fopkjksijkar ;g fu"d"kZ fudyrk gS fd lsfodk in ij p;u izfdz;k fu;ekuqlkj dh x;h gS vkSj p;u izfdz;k esa fdlh Hkh vfu;ferrk ifjyf{kr ugha gksrh gSA

¶81

mijksDr fu"d"kZ ds vkyksd esa lsfodk in ij vkosfndk ds p;u dk nkok ugh acurk gSA

¶82

g0@&

¶83

19-12-14

¶84

ftyk izksxzke inkf/kdkjh

¶85

Hkkxyiqj**

¶86

It was this order of the District Programme

¶87

Officer, Bhagalpur which was made subject matter of appeal before the Deputy Director Welfare, Bhagalpur Division in Misc. Appeal Case No. 01/15-16 who, after

¶88

Patna High Court CWJC No.11739 of 2015 (2) dt.04-08-2015

¶89

¶90

looking into the record, had recorded that the total marks of the petitioner by excluding the 5^th paper of Mathematics would be 399 and, as such, she would be entitled to computation of 44.33% marks as against the 45.33% marks of the respondent no.8. Having arrived at such a findings, the Deputy Director Welfare in his appellate order had held that it was the respondent no.8 who was the better candidate on merit as against the petitioner and, as such, she was required to be appointed. The relevant portion of the order of the Deputy Director Welfare dated 24.6.2015 reads as follows:-

¶91

^vfiydRRkkZ ds foK vf/koDrk dks lquus ,oa foi{kh la0 03 ds }kjk lefiZr izfrosnu ds voyksdu ,oa ifj'khyu ls ;g Li"V gksrk gS fd ftyk izksxzke inkf/kdkjh] Hkkxyiqj ds }kjk vius vkns'k Qyd esa foi{kh la0 02 latw dqekjh ds }kjk nkf[ky okf"kZd ,oa iqjd ijh{kk ds vadi= ds vad dks tksM+us ds mijkar x.kuk dj dqy izkIrkad 458 ,oa izfr'kr 50-8 n'kkZ;k x;k gS og xyr gSA pwafd latw dqekjh ds }kjk nkf[ky ewy izek.k i= esa ikapos fo"k; ds :i esa xf.kr dks n'kkZ;k x;k gS vr% xf.kr ds izkIrkad dks NksM+dj dqy izkIrkad dk fu/kkZj.k fd;k tkuk pkfg, Fkk ysfdu ftyk izksxzke inkf/kdkjh] Hkkxyiqj }kjk ,slk ughas fd;k x;kA latw dqekjh ds ikapos i= xf.kr dks NksM+dj tksM+us ij dqy izkIrkad 399 gksrk gS ftls 900 ls Hkkx nsdj 100 ls xq.kk djus ij izkIrkad izfr'kr 44-33 gksrk gSA bl rjg ls

¶92

Patna High Court CWJC No.11739 of 2015 (2) dt.04-08-2015

¶93

¶94

vihydRrkZ dk dqy es/kk vad 45-33 ls foi{kh la0 02 latw dqekjh dk es/kk vad de gksrk gSA

¶95

U;k;ky; ;g ikrk gS fd ftyk izksxzke inkf/kdkjh] Hkkxyiqj }kjk lE;d :i ls foi{kh la0 02 latw dqekjh ds izkIrk a d dks ftyk inkf/kdkjh] Hkkxyiqj ds vkns'kkuqlkj ugha tksM+k x;k vkSj fcuk foosd dk iz;ksx fd, iwoZ ds es/kk lwph ds vk/kkj ij n'kkZ;s x;s latw dqekjh ds dqy izkIrkad 458 dks lgh djkj fn;k x;k tks rF;ghu ,oa okLrfodrk ls ijs gSA U;k;ky; ;g ikrk gS fd uwru 'kekZ dk dqy es/kk vad foi{kh la0 02 latw dqekjh ds es/kk vad ls vf/kd gSA ,oa rkRdkyhu iapk;r lfpo ,oa eqf[k;k xzke iapk;r gchoiqj ds }kjk cuk;k x;k es/kk lwph iw.kZr% =qfViw.kZ gSA

¶96

vr% vihydRrkZ ds vihy vkosnu dks Lohd`r djrs gq, izksxazke inkf/kdkjh] Hkkxyiqj ds vkns'k fnukad 19-12-14 dks fujLr fd;k tkrk gSA foi{kh la0 02 latw dqekjh dks p;ueqDr fd;k tkrk gSA cky fodkl ifj;kstuk inkf/kdkjh] txnh'kiqj dks ;g funs'k fn;k tkrk gS fd vihydRRkkZ uwru 'kekZ dks lsfodk in ds fy, p;u i= fuxZr djsxhA lkFk gh vihydRrkZ ,oa foi{kh la0 02 latw dqekjh ds izek.ki=ksa dh Hkh tkp lacaf/kr cksMZ ls djk,xh vkSj ;fn fdlh izdkj dh folaxfr;ksa ikbZ tkrh gS rks rnuqlkj dkjZokbZ Hkh djsaxhA okn dh dkjZokbZ lekIr dh tkrh gSA

¶97

ys[kkfir ,o a l a 'kksf/kr g0@& g0@& 24@6@15 24@6@15 U;k;ky; mifuns'kd dY;k.k U;k;ky; mifuns'kd dY;k.k Hkkxyiqj ize.My. Hkkxyi a qj Hkkxyiqj ize.My' Hkkxyiqj**

¶98

From the reading of the aforesaid order of the

¶99

authorities, it becomes absolutely clear that the mark of

¶100

Patna High Court CWJC No.11739 of 2015 (2) dt.04-08-2015

¶101

¶102

the respondent no.8 after computation of her Intermediate examination was arrived at 45.33%. This is common in all the orders either be of District Programme Officer or in the appellate order of the Deputy Director Welfare. It is only the marks of the petitioner which has surprisingly been kept on varying, inasmuch as, she had herself declared in her application to have secured 43 whereas her selection was made on the basis of her securing 458 marks but, then, as this Court from her mark-sheet, as discussed above, has found that the petitioner had secured only 367 marks in her Matriculation examination and her marks in the Optional subject could not have been taken into consideration as per the provision made in the Guideline. There is also a finding of fact of the District Programme Officer himself that the total marks of the respondent no.8 in Matriculation was 381 which would mean that she had secured 42.3% marks in her Matriculation examination which is higher than the petitioner securing 40.88% marks.

¶103

Patna High Court CWJC No.11739 of 2015 (2) dt.04-08-2015

¶104

¶105

Additionally, as per the Guideline, seven weightage points was to be added for the Intermediate examination which will make it read 49.33% marks but then this Court even assuming that the respondent no.8 had secured only 45.3% marks, taking her marks of Matriculation and weightage point of Intermediate together, she would still be a better candidate on merit as against the petitioner.

¶106

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to dispute even the marks of respondent no. 8 and for this purpose he wants this Court to look into on a Photostat copy of the marks sheet of the respondent. This Court would refuse to do so because there is no pleading in the writ application as with regard to this aspect nor the said marks sheet of respondent no.8 has been made part of this writ application.

¶107

This Court, under the power of judicial review in the matter of Anganbadi Sevika, which is not Government post, can only go to the aspect as to whether the provision of the guideline for deciding the

¶108

Patna High Court CWJC No.11739 of 2015 (2) dt.04-08-2015

¶109

¶110

merit had been followed. This Court for the reason indicated above finds that the petitioner has lower marks and as such effort to remain on the post of Anganbadi Sevika must come to an end, inasmuch as, as this Court does not find any flaw in the impugned appellate order dated 24.06.2015.

¶111

That being so, it has to be held that this writ application is devoid of any merit. It is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶112

(Mihir Kumar Jha, J)

¶113

Ranjan/U

Sanju Kumari @ Sanju Devi v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanju Kumari @ Sanju Devi v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ajay Kumar Singh NO.1 Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Arun Kumar Singh Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Lakshmi Narayan Prasad Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Trilok Nath Singh Vs the Biscomaun and Ors.

Sanjay Kumar Singh Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Sudhir Kumar Sinha Vs the Vaishali Khetriya Gr.BANKand