IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15633 of 2006 KUMAR PANKAJ ANAND, S/O SHRI RAMESHWAR PRASAD SINGH, R/O VILLAGE BADAURA, POST NAUSANDA, DISTRICT NALANDA,BIHAR 803110. …………………PETITIONER. VERSUS 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2.THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE CUM CHAIRMAN, DISTRICT HEALTH SOCIETY, LAKHISARAI. 3.MEMBER, SECRETARY, DISTRICT HEALTH SOCIETY, (CIVIL ENGINEER) LAKHISARAI, DHS, OFFICE, LAKHISARAI BIHAR. 4.THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, STATE HEALTH SOCIETY, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 5.KAUSHIK KAUSHAL, S/O SAKET BIHARI, SONALIKA PHOTOSTAT, MAIN ROAD, MAHENDRU, PATNA 6, PRESENTLY SERVING AS DISTRICT PROGRAMME MANAGER, LAKHISARAI, DISTRICT HEALTH SOCIETY, OFFICE, LAKHISARAI, BIHAR. ………………RESPONDENTS. ----------- 03/ 15.07.2011 Having heard counsel for the parties as with regard to the following relief sought by the petitioner:- “That this writ application is directed against the arbitrary actions of the Respondent authorities in selecting and consequently appointing a completely ineligible individual to the post of District Programme Manager for District Health Society, Lakhisarai in blatant violation of the terms and conditions of advertisement by relaxing the rules pertaining to the selection without any power or authority to do so and purposely for accommodating their blue eyed boy.” this Court is of the considered opinion that there is no flaw in the selection process undertaken by the Authorities while recruiting District Programme Officer on contractual basis in the National Rural Health Mission for 2 District Health Society, Lakhisarai. The Authorities had prescribed certain qualification and experience which were the terms of eligibility and on that parameter, seven of the candidates were subjected to selection process of written test, computer test and viva voice. In the counter affidavit that has been filed by the respondents they have not only enclosed the evaluation sheet prepared by the joint selection committee consisting of the District Magistrate, Deputy Development Commissioner, Civil Surgeon and the Consultant but it also goes to show that the petitioner could secure 18 out of 50 in the written test, 8 out of 15 in the computer test and 20 out of 35 in the viva voice test, and his total was 46 out of 100 whereas the Respondent no. 5 had secured 34 in written test 8 in computer test and 15 in viva test and the total was 57 out of 100. It is thus clear that no undue favour was done to Respondent no. 5, the candidate who in fact was judged to be better in all respect in view of his performance in the selection process wherein he had secured the highest marks. The petitioner himself has enclosed the resume of aforesaid respondent no. 5 showing that he has secured 3 69.5 per cent marks in the Post Graduation (M.B.A) examination whereas the petitioner has secured only 60 per cent marks. In that view of the matter, merely because the petitioner has ample experience, that itself could not have put him on a better footing who have had not only better academic record but had performed best amongst all the candidates in the selection process. That being so, this application is wholly misconceived and is, accordingly, dismissed. Ranjan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J)