IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6672 of 2008 POONAM KUMARI, W/O SHRI BINAY KUMAR, R/O VILLAGE AND P.O.-VIKRAMPUR, P.S.-CHERIYA BARIARPUR, DISTRICT-BEGUSARAI.…………PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE DIRECTOR, PRIMARY EDUCATION, BIHAR, PATNA. 4. THE DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER, MUNGER DIVISION, MUNGER. 5. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, BEGUSARAI. 6. THE DEPUTY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER-CUM- CHAIRMAN, DISTRICT EDUCATION ESTABLISHMENT COMMITTEE, BEGUSARAI. 7. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, BEGUSARAI. 8. THE PRAKHAND PRAMUKH, CHHAURAHI PRAKHAND, DISTRICT-BEGUSARAI. 9. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, CHHAURAHI, DISTRICT-BEGUSARAI. 10. THE BLOCK EDUCATION EXTENSION OFFICER, CHHAURAHI, DISTRICT-BEGUSARAI. 11. THE BLOCK EDUCATION EXTENSION OFFICER, KHODAWANDPUR, DISTRICT-BEGUSARAI. ……………RESPONDENTS. ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr.Umesh Kumar Mishra, Adv. For the State : Mr.Dhurendra Kumar, AC to SC-16. ----------- 10 02.08.2011 Petitioner has filed an I.A. No.1676 of 2011. Along with this I.A. a list of candidates, whose candidature were rejected, has been annexed as Annexure-17. Through this I.A. the petitioner has sought for quashing of this list also. Since the list is connected with the process of selection and appointment which is under challenge in this case, the I.A. is allowed. Petitioner is granted 2 liberty to challenge the same. From the facts of the case placed by learned counsels it appears that on 04.10.2006 counseling was held in the office of the concerned Block Development Officer for appointment of Prakhand Teachers. Petitioner appeared as literate female candidate. She had 52.51% merit marks. The minimum cut-off merit marks for literate female candidates was fixed at 53%. However, as per the case of the respondents, due to some mistake, the certificates of the petitioner were verified. But as she had less then 53% merit marks her name was not included in the final merit list and she was not considered for appointment. Later on, minimum required merit marks was reduced and another counselling was held on 23.12.2006. On that day petitioner did not appear for verification of her certificates. Hence, her name was again not included in the final merit list for selection of candidate prepared on that day. Petitioner filed a complaint before the Collector, Begusarai, vide Annexure-4, and before the D.S.E., Begusarai, vide Annexure-5. On the complaint filed by the petitioner before the Collector, Begusarai, it appears that, a report was called for. Accordingly, the Executive Magistrate submitted a report to the Collector through his letter dated 16.08.2007, as contained in 3 Annexure-11. In the report, after noticing the facts, it was suggested that the matter should be sent to the Panel Preparation Committee for being resolved. Meanwhile, petitioner had already filed a complaint before the Deputy Development Commissioner (hereinafter referred to as ‘the D.D.C.’) within the statutory period who was the Appellate Authority under the Rules to entertain any complaint in respect of engagement of Prakhand Teachers. On that complaint, the D.D.C. called for a report from the Block Education Extension Officer which was submitted through letter dated 18.07.2007, as contained in Annexure-9. In the report the Block Education Extension Officer pointed out that, due to crowd on 04.10.2006, petitioner had wrongly got her certificates verified although her merit points was less than the minimum required merit points for inclusion in the final merit list for selection. When later on the minimum percentage of merit points was reduced, another counselling was held on 23.12.2006. But on that day petitioner did not appear. He opined that now the petitioner was trying to get advantage of wrongly verified certificates for inclusion in the final merit list prepared on the basis of subsequent counselling. After the report was received the matter was heard by the D.D.C. 4 During the hearing husband of the petitioner appeared on behalf of the petitioner and the Block Education Extension Officer also appeared. The D.D.C. after hearing found that on account of crowd fraudulently the petitioner had got her certificates verified on 04.10.2006 and therefore, she could not take advantage of that very verification for the purposes of inclusion of her name in the second merit list prepared on the basis of fresh counselling held on 23.12.2006, on which day she had not appeared. In the circumstances, he rejected the appeal of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the verification of the certificates of the petitioner on 04.10.2006 was not wrong. He refers to paper news published in the Hindustan on 21.09.2006, photocopy of which is Annexure-3 and submits that it was laid down that in computation of cut-off merit points, if the fraction of percentage was more than 5 the same had to be computed as full points. On the basis of this news paper notice he submits that since the petitioner had 52.51% merit points the same had to be accepted as 53%, which was the minimum merit points required for inclusion of name in the final merit list for selection. He submits that due to this, the certificates of the petitioner were rightly verified and therefore she was 5 entitled to be included in the final merit list for selection and appointment. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that he has received information under R.T.I. Act that on that day total 91 candidates got their certificates verified out of which only 49 were female candidates. Hence, he submits that the stand of the respondents that due to crowd the petitioner got her certificates verified fraudulently is a false stand. Counter affidavit has been filed in the case. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that since the petitioner had less then 53% merit points she could not be included in the merit list on the basis of counselling. He submits that even if her certificates were verified earlier, rightly or wrongly, when the fresh counselling was held on 23.12.2006 for candidates of having lower cut-off merit points the petitioner ought to have appeared in the counselling and ought to have shown to the authorities that her certificates had already been verified, and she should be included in the merit list on the basis of the same. She did not do that. Therefore, she was not entitled to be included in the fresh merit list which was prepared on the basis of fresh counselling held on 23.12.2006. Having heard learned counsel for the parties 6 and after perusing the records, this Court finds that so far computation of merit points is concerned, the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is correct. The paper news, as contained in Annexure-3, makes it clear that, if the merit points were in fractions of 5 or more than 5, the same had to be calculated as full point and added in the merit points. Thus if the petitioner had 52.51% merit points, she could be legitimately treated as having 53% merit points and thus eligible for consideration. But the question is, if the petitioner’s name was not included in the first merit list, why did she not raise her grievance immediately against the same. There was no requirement for the petitioner to wait for the second counselling. As learned counsel for the petitioner points out, the first objection or compliant was filed by the petitioner before the Collector in Janta Darbar on 23.05.2007 i.e. after the second counselling was held and merit list was published in which also the name of the petitioner was not included. The cause of action itself had arose to the petitioner when, pursuant to the first counselling held on 04.10.2006 her name was not included in the first merit list. The limitation for filing any complaint has to start from that date. Obviously the complaint of the petitioner, not before the competent authority and not 7 before the Appellate Authority, as provided in the Rules, but before the another authority of the district who had no jurisdiction under the Rules to entertain compliant, was filed almost 6 months after. A formal complaint of the petitioner before the D.D.C. is annexure-6 which is dated 25.06.2007. In this complaint she mentioned that she had been attempting to file an application before the Block Education Extension Officer for redressing her grievance by adding her name in the list which was not being accepted by him. This shows that it was only when in the second merit list, which was prepared on the basis of fresh counselling on 23.12.2006, her name was not included, she started filing her objection and complaint before the authorities. The fact remains that on 23.12.2006 she had not appeared in the counselling which is not denied. It is all on the basis of the first verification of her certificates on 04.10.2006 she claimed that she should have been included in the second merit list. Whereas her cause of action arose at the first stage itself when her name was not included in the final merit list of candidates on the basis of minimum cut-off merit points of 53% for literate female candidates. This Court finds that the respondents were not obliged under law to include the name of the petitioner in the final merit list prepared on the basis of 8 counselling and verification held on 23.12.2006 on the basis of verification of her certificates at the time of earlier counselling held on 04.10.2006 unless petitioner had appeared before them with her already verified certificates. Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out no material to show that the candidates who had appeared in the earlier counselling and had got their certificates verified were exempted from appearing in the second counselling. As such, this Court does not find any error in the order of the D.D.C. in rejecting the appeal of the petitioner and therefore does not find any merit in the writ application. The same is accordingly dismissed. Arvind/ ( J.N. Singh, J.)