IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.721 of 2009 ---------- BABY KUMARI, wife of Saryu Yadav, Resident of village – and P.O. – Sawankala, block Amas, P.S. – Amas, District – Gaya ……. Petitioner - Appellant Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. The Commissioner, Magadh Division, Gaya. 3. The Collector – cum – District Magistrate, Gaya 4. The Sub Divisional Officer (S.D.O.) Sherghati, Gaya 5. The Block Development Officer – cum – Anchal Adhikari, Amas, Gaya 6. The District Programme Officer, Gaya 7. The C.D.P.O., Amas, Gaya. 8. The Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat, Sawankala, Amas, Gaya. 9. Baby Sinha, Wife of Sri Bipin Kumar Sinha, Resident of village – Bajit Chak, Block – Gurua, P.S. Gurua, District Gaya. ..….. Respondents - Respondents ----------- For the Appellants : Mrs. Alka Verma, Advocate For Respondent Nos. 2 to 7: Mr. Shambhu Nath, A.C. to G.P.X For Respondent No. 9 : M/s Ashwani Kumar Singh, Sr. Advocate Jai Prakash Singh, Advocate ------------ P R E S E N T: THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DR. RAVI RANJAN O R D E R (03.02.2010) As per Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, respondent nos.2 to 7 (State authorities) as well as respondent no. 9. None has appeared on behalf of respondent no. 8. 2. The writ petitioner – appellant, being aggrieved by the order dated 24.3.2009 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 3549 of 2 2009 by a learned Single Judge of this Court, has preferred this Letters Patent Appeal. 3. It has been submitted on behalf of the writ petitioner – appellant that for selection of Angan Bari Sewika of Sawan Kalan village, a meeting of Aam Sabha of Sawan Kalan Panchayat was held on 13.3.2007. Selection was to be made from the candidates of backward class and the writ petitioner – appellant and the respondent no. 8, Baby Sinha, were the candidates. Another requirement for selection was that the candidate must be the resident of the concerned village / Mohalla / Tola and her own name or the name of her husband must appear in the voter list of the concerned Panchayat or alternatively the candidate must be having a residential certificate showing her residence in the concerned village. It had been contended that the residential qualification of respondent no. 9 was under some cloud and as such the matter was referred to the District Programme Officer concerned upon whose recommendation the respondent no. 9 was selected. However, at that point of time the residential certificate of respondent no. 9 was already cancelled by the S.D.O. Sherghati. In that view of the matter 3 the Child Development Programme Officer, Amas requested the District Programme Officer concerned to give guideline. Thereafter, upon consideration of the subsequent development, the concerned District Programme Officer recommended for selection of the appellant as Angan Bari Sevika of village Sawan Kalan. 4. It had been claimed that the writ petitioner – appellant was sent for training, which she received for one week and a certificate, to the effect, was also issued by the concerned authority. The Child Development Programme Officer, Amas requested the Mukhiya of Sawan Kalan Panchayat to issue selection letter to the writ petitioner – appellant which was eventually done by the concerned Mukhiya. It was further contended that the name of respondent no. 9 along with her husband and entered in the voter list of Gram Bajit Chak of Kaj Gram Panchayat of Gurua Prakhand (Gaya) i.e. a different Panchayat. The writ petitioner – appellant had brought the documents in support of her submission as Annexures G series, H and I to the writ petition. In the meantime the respondent no. 9, being aggrieved by the cancellation of her residential certificate, as stated above, 4 approached this Court by filing C.W.J.C. No. 6799 of 2007. However, she also filed a petition before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sherghati, for issuing her correct residential certificate showing her residence at village Majholiya, Block – Amas, which was eventually done by him as the concerned Sub-Divisional Officer had withdrawn his earlier order cancelling the residential certificate of the respondent no. 9. Thereafter respondent no. 9 withdrew her C.W.J.C. No. 6799 of 2007. 5. As is evincible, the respondent concerned, then filed objection, which was heard and disposed of by the District Magistrate – cum – Collector of Gaya, holding that the respondent no. 9 was actually a residence of village Majholiya, Panchayat Sawan Kalan of Amas Block and gave direction for cancellation of the selection of the appellant and for issuance selection letter in favour of the respondent no. 9. The writ petitioner - appellant, aggrieved by order passed by the Collector, Gaya, preferred appeal before the Commissioner, Magadh Division, Gaya, which was numbered as Case No. 70 of 2007. The Commissioner also upheld the order passed by the Collector and dismissed the appeal of 5 the writ petitioner – appellant. Thereafter, the appellant challenged the aforesaid order passed by the authorities by filing C.W.J.C. 3549 of 2009, which had also been dismissed by the learned Single Judge. 6. It is submitted on behalf of the writ petitioner – appellant that it would be manifest from the Annexures G series, H and I that the respondent no. 9 is not a resident of Sawan Kalan Panchayat, which is under Amas Block rather she is resident of Bajit Chak under Kaj Gram Panchayat of Gurua Prakhand, Gaya. It has been urged that the learned Single Judge had committed serious error in not appreciating the aforesaid fact. It is also canvassed that the residence of the writ petitioner – appellant was not under cloud, as reflected in the impugned order rather the residential claim of respondent no. 9 was under cloud. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner – appellant drew attention of this Court towards the relevant passage of the order of the learned Single Judge in this regard. 7. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State as well as respondent no. 9. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 9 submitted that the respondent no. 9, Baby Sinha was having higher qualification 6 than the writ petitioner – appellant and as such she was found entitled for the selection. However, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sherghati, cancelled the previously granted residential certificate, on 20.4.2007 without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in gross violation of principle of natural justice. Thus, the respondent no. 9 was compelled to approach this Court by filing C.W.J.C. No. 6799 of 2007. However, a representation was also made against the aforesaid order of cancellation to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sherghati, himself upon which inquiry was held by the Circle Officer, Amas, as well as Sub-Divisional Officer, Sherghati. The S.D.O. withdrew his earlier order dated 20.4.2007 as contained in Annexure D of the counter affidavit of respondent no. 9, whereby he had cancelled the earlier granted residential certificate in favour of the respondent no. 9. Therefore, the respondent concerned did not press the writ petition. Thereafter, the matter was represented before the District Magistrate, Gaya. The District Magistrate, Gaya, then, directed one of the Executive Magistrates, Sadar, Gaya, to hold inquiry in the matter and submit a report. The report was submitted on 31.7.2007 finding that the respondent no. 9 7 was actually resident of village Majhaulia within the concerned Panchayat. It has further been submitted that the husband of the respondent no. having joint family house at both village Bajit Chak as well as village Majhaulia. However, in family partition which took place in 20.11.2003, the husband of the answering respondent got his share at village Majhaulia. The husband of the concerned respondent had also applied to the concerned authorities for removing his name from the voters list of Bajit Chak Panchayat but the Returning Officer concerned did not take necessary action in time, however, it is submitted that for such lack of action on part of the concerned authority the respondent no. 9 cannot be held responsible. Considering all such grounds the concerned District Magistrate in his order dated 6.12.2007 had held that the respondent no. 9 was qualified for selection and had directed for cancelling the selection letter issued in favour of the writ petitioner – appellant. The writ petitioner – appellant then preferred appeal before the Commissioner, Magadh Division, which was also upheld and the order passed by the District Magistrate - cum - Collector, Gaya, was upheld. 8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 8 State also submitted that the concerned Sub-Divisional Magistrate on thorough inquiry had come to the conclusion that the husband of respondent no. 9 was a resident of Amas Prakhand. Thus, the respondent no, 9, who was having higher qualification than the appellant, had rightly been selected as Agan Bari Sevika of the concerned village. 9. On consideration of rival submissions this Court is also of the opinion that since the respondent no. 9 has been found to be a resident of the concerned Panchayat / Prakhand by the concerned authorities on repeated inquiries, it would not be open for this Court to enter into, examine and decide the disputed question of fact with regard to the residence of the respondent no. 9 in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction. The authorities concerned have categorically come to the conclusion that respondent no. 9 is the resident of concerned Panchayat / Prakhand and is having higher qualification and, thus, has been selected. Even if the writ petitioner – appellant has questioned the order passed by the learned Single Judge on the ground that some error had been committed by stating in the order that writ – petitioner – appellant’s appointment had been cancelled on the ground that 9 she was not a resident of the concerned Panchayat, however, without entering into such question this Court also has reached to the same conclusion that the writ petitioner - appellant could not make out a case for interference by this Court in its writ jurisdiction. 10. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this being intra Court appeal, we do not find any reason for interference in the order passed by the learned Single Jude. 11. As a result this appeal fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. I agree. The Patna High Court The 3rd February, 2010. Sanjay/NAFR (Dipak Misra, C.J.) (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)