IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.6474 of 2011 Manju Kumari WIFE OF BINOD RAM RESIDENT OF CHAMPAPUR, P.S. PATAHI, DISTRICT EAST CHAMPARAN. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE DIRECTOR, SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA. 4. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, EAST CHAMPARAN. 5. THE S.D.O. PAKARIAYAL, EAST CHAMPARAN AT MOTIHARI. 6. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, PATAHI, EAST CHAMPARAN. 7. SHOBHA DEVI WIFE OF SUSHIL RAM RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BAKHARI, P.S. PATAHI, EAST CHAMPARAN. ---------------------------------- 2 04.08.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State as well as learned counsel representing respondent no. 7. This writ application has been filed by the petitioner stating that the respondent authorities have created discrimination against the petitioner by ignoring her claim on the post of Vikas Mitra even though her name figured at serial no. 1 in the so called merit list. The appointment of respondent no. 7 on this count is required to be interfered with. - 2 - The documents which were submitted by the petitioner with regard to her educational qualification was verified and on verification of the same the respondents found anomalies because the admit card and the school leaving certificate shows different registration number. Even the roll number of her admit card does not tally with the marks sheet which was furnished. There was serious doubt expressed with regard to the authenticity of such documents having been produced in support of the so called educational qualification. Counter affidavit was served upon the petitioner on 20th July, 2011. No rebuttal or proper explanation came forth on this count. Obviously, with the kind of documents which were tendered by the petitioner, the respondents decided to ignore her claim and appoint the next person from the shortlist. No citizen has a right of appointment on a begotten kind of document or documents, suspicious in nature on the face of it. There was reason for the respondents not to consider the claim of the petitioner because it is the educational qualification which was the basis for appointment. If the educational qualification of - 3 - the petitioner is suspect, the respondents have done no wrong. This writ application is dismissed. AMIN/ (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)