Patna High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.22581 of 2011 ====================================================== Kiran Kumari, W/O Sri Vijay Kumar, R/O Village- Sunder Bigha, P.O.- Ajnaura, P.S.- Noorsarai, District- Nalanda .... .... Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary-Cum-Commissioner of Social Welfare Department, Govt. of Bihar, Sichai Bhawan, Old Secretariat, Patna. 2. The Commissioner, Patna Division, Near Golghar, Patna. 3. The District Officer, Nalanda at Biharsharif. 4. The District Programme Officer, Nalanda at Biharsharif. 5. The Child Development Programme Officer, Noorsarai, District- Nalanda at Biharsharif. 6. The District Pariyojana Officer, Nalanda at Biharsharif. 7. The Director, I.C.D.S., Indira Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna. .... .... Respondents. ====================================================== with Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.23300 of 2011 ====================================================== Manjusha Kumari, W/O Sri Ram Naresh Prasad, Resident of Village – Chakhauni, P.S. Birju Milki, P.S. Harnaut, District - Nalanda .... .... Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary-Cum- Commissioner of Social Welfare Department, Govt. of Bihar , Sichai Bhawan, Old Secretariat, Patna. 2. The Commissioner, Patna Division, Near Golghar, Patna 3. The District Officer Nalanda at Biharsharif 4. The District Programme Officer, Nalanda at Biharsharif 5. The Child Development Programme Officer, Harnaut District - Nalanda at Biharsharif 6. The District Pariyojana Programme Officer, Nalanda at Biharsharif 7. The Director I.C.D.S. , Indira Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna
Legal Reasoning
.... .... Respondents ====================================================== with Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.54 of 2012 ====================================================== Pratima Kumari, W/O Sri Avadh Paswan, Resident of Village-Kakaria, P.O. Sohasrai, P.S. Noorsarai, District-Nalanda. .... .... Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary-Cum-Commissioner of Social Welfare Department, Govt. of Bihar, Sichai Bhawan, Old Secretariat, Patna 2. The Commissioner, Patna Division, Near Golghar, Patna 3. The District Officer, Nalanda at Biharsharif 4. The District Programme Officer, Nalanda at Biharsharif 5. The Child Development Programme Officer, Noorsarai, District- 2 Patna High Court CWJC No.22581 of 2011 (4) dt.13-11-2013 2 / 6 Nalanda at Biharsharif 6. The District Pariyojana Officer, Nalanda at Biharsharif 7. The Director, I.C.D.S., Indira Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna .... .... Respondents ====================================================== with Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.21 of 2012 ====================================================== Veena Kumari, W/O Sri Shrawan Ravidas, Resident of Village + P.O. + .... .... Petitioner. P.S.-Asthama, District-Nalanda at Bihar Sharif Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary-Cum-Commissioner of Social Welfare Department, Govt. of Bihar, Sichai Bhawan, Old Secretariat, Patna 2. The Commissioner, Patna Division, Near Golghar, Patna 3. The District Officer, Nalanda at Biharsharif 4. The District Programme Officer, Nalanda at Biharsharif 5. The Child Development Programme Officer, Asthawan, District- Nalanda at Biharsharif 6. The District Pariyojna Officer, Nalanda at Biharsharif 7. The Director, I.C.D.S., Indira Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna .... .... Respondents ====================================================== with Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.23216 of 2011 ====================================================== Sudha Sindhu, W/O Vidyanand Kumar, R/O Village-Patasia, P.O.-Lohra, .... .... Petitioner. P.S.-Harnaut, Distt.-Nalanda Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary-Cum-Commissioner of Social Welfare Department, Govt. of Bihar, Sichai Bhawan, Old Secretariat, Patna 2. The Commissioner, Patna Division, Near Golghar, Patna 3. The District Officer, Nalanda at Biharsharif. 4. The District Programme Officer, Nalanda at Biharsharif. 5. The Child Development Programme Officer, Harnaut, Distt.-Nalanda at Biharsharif 6. The District Pariyojana Officer, Nalanda at Biharsharif. 7. The Director, I.C.D.S., Indira Bhawan Bailey Road, Patna .... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance : (In CWJC No.22581 of 2011) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sachida Nand Kishore Pd. Sinha, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Manoj Kumar, AC to GA-10 (In CWJC No.23300 of 2011) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sachida Nand Kishore Pd. Sinha, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Jahan Ara, AC to AAG-5 (In CWJC No.54 of 2012) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sachida Nand Kishore Pd. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Kaushal Kr. Jha SC-4 (In CWJC No.21 of 2012) 3 Patna High Court CWJC No.22581 of 2011 (4) dt.13-11-2013 3 / 6 For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sachida Nand Kishore Pd. Sinha, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Jha, AC to SC-14 (In CWJC No.23216 of 2011) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sachida Nand Kishore Pd. Sinha, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Lakmesh Marund, AC to SC-9 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SAMARENDRA PRATAP SINGH ORAL ORDER 4 13-11-2013 The substantial issues are same and as such all these cases are taken up together for disposal. 2. The petitioners before this Court are Anganbari Sevikas. All of them have been put in more than 10 years of service. They have applied for Lady Supervisor pursuant to advertisement dated 01.07.2010, 25% of such posts of Lady Supervisors were to be filled up by promotions from amongst the Anganbari Sevikas whereas 75% of such posts through direct recruitment. 3. The selections were made on the basis of guideline dated 10.06.2010 of the Department of Social Welfare Department. After scrutiny of the applications, a merit list panel was prepared. It appears that the petitioners were initially quite above in the panel at the initiate stage, but subsequently their names did not figure in the final merit list for appointment of Lady Supervisors. The petitioners being aggrieved have moved this Court in writ applications. 4. The petitioners have challenged the decision 4 Patna High Court CWJC No.22581 of 2011 (4) dt.13-11-2013 4 / 6 making process. They raised a point that the respondents gave credit to the candidates for the marks secured in the matriculation examination though the guidelines did not provide for giving any point for marks secured in matriculation examinations. The petitioners submit that no marks for matriculation were awarded in Patna and Gaya Districts whereas the authorities have incorrectly given points for Matric examination in Nalanda District. Secondly; points were to be provided for higher qualifications like Intermediate, Graduation, Post-Graduate depending on divisions secured but were not given points for higher qualifications e.g. Graduate etc. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that the petitioners had to take permission of authorities before taking examination of Intermediate, Graduation or Post Graduate which they have not done. They further state petitioners have a remedy of appeal under Clause 5(ix) of 2010 guidelines. The petitioners controvert the claim of respondents and state that they had taken permission of C.D.P.O. 6. I have heard the counsel for the parties. The selections of Lady Supervisors were to be conducted in accordance with guidelines contained in resolution dated 10.06.2010 issued by the Principal Secretary, Social Welfare 5 Patna High Court CWJC No.22581 of 2011 (4) dt.13-11-2013 5 / 6 Department (Annexure-4). The guidelines provide for points for securing higher qualifications like Intermediate, Graduate and Post-Graduate etc. The guidelines do not provide points for marks secured in Matriculation examination. The selection committee of Patna and Gaya districts have too not provided such points to the candidates for marks secured by them in Matriculation examination. To this extent the submission of petitioners seems to have force. 7. The other issue is whether the petitioners have taken the higher examinations like the Intermediate, Graduate and Post-Graduate after due permission of the authorities concerned. The petitioners have annexed the endorsement of approval of C.D.P.O. in their applications for permission. However, the State has vehemently controverted the assertions of the petitioners. 8. The issue is one of the facts, which is in dispute. Clause 5(ix) of 2010 Resolution of Social Welfare Department provide for appeal, if the candidates are in any manner aggrieved by error in the selection process. The petitioners have tried to impress upon the Court that there is no bar in moving this Court directly. The contention of the petitioners is only to be noted to be rejected as I have already pointed that some of the relevant facts are in dispute which could be well resolved in appeal. 6 Patna High Court CWJC No.22581 of 2011 (4) dt.13-11-2013 6 / 6 9. As there is an alternative remedy of appeal, I am not inclined to interfere with the matter. In view of the reasons noted above, it is expected that the Appellate Authority would dispose of the appeal preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 10. With the aforesaid observation, all these writ
Decision
applications are disposed of. Uday/- (Samarendra Pratap Singh, J)