IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10272 of 2010 1. Bishesa Rani D/O Sri Sita Ram Sah R/O Moh Bakaria Tola, Maharajganj, P.S.Alamganj, Distt-Patna Versus 1. The State Of Bihar Through The Director General Of Police Bihar At Patna 2. The Director General Of Police Bihar At Patna 3. The Deputy Inspector General Of Police (Admin) Bihar At Patna 4. The Deputy Inspector General Of Police, Bihar Military Police (Central Division) Patna 5. The Commandant , Bihar Military Police-14 Patna 6. The Superintendent Of Police , Sitamarhi-Cum-Chairman, Selection Committee, Central Division Board No. 3 ---------------------------------- 4. 13.09.2011 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, the State and for private Respondent no. 8. No one appears on behalf of Respondents 7 & 9 despite valid service of notice. Para 31 of the writ application states that of the three private respondents, Respondents 7 and 9 had not joined. Answering the same the counter affidavit of the SDPO Benipur at Darbhanga at para 16 states that it requires no comment. The contention of the petitioner for availability of vacancy therefore stands admitted on principles of non traverse. The petitioner and Respondent no. 8 were applicants in the OBC category under advertisement no. 2 of 2004 for the post of Lady Constable in BPM 14.The petitioner came to be appointed on 19.11.2007. She is aggrieved by the orders dated 24.12.2007, 23.6.2009 and 18.3.2010 removing her from service and upholding the removal. The petitioner came to this Court earlier in CWJC no. 8965 of 2008 with a limited direction for disposal of her representation. Aggrieved by the fresh order she came again in CWJC No. 1924 of 2 2009. Noticing that the order for removal was in violation of natural justice but that the selected candidates i.e. Respondents 7 to 9 had not been impleaded the matter was remanded to the authorities. CWJC No. 10449 of 2009 preferred against the fresh order was disposed to avail remedy of appeal which has finally been rejected by the impugned order dated 18.3.2010. From the pleadings of the parties and the submissions made on their behalf it goes beyond the pale of controversy that the private respondents failed to secure appointment because their necessary caste certificates were not enclosed with the application form. Satisfied that they had better performance than the petitioner, the petitioner was then asked to make way to accommodate them leading to her removal. The assertion of the petitioner in para 14 of the writ application that her removal from the service, a major issue, was in violation of the principle of natural justice, has not been denied in the two counter affidavits filed by the official respondents. Perhaps if those appointed subsequently had not enclosed their original certificates with their application form, that may not have been sufficient ground to move out the petitioner to accommodate them. But those issues are no more relevant as it now transpires that at least two vacancies in the OBC category for women are still available due to failure of Respondents 7 and 9 to join. No other illegality in the appointment of the petitioner or any ineligibility on her part has been averred by the State. The Court in the facts of the present case therefore holds and directs that the petitioner is bound to be reconsidered for reinstatement from the date of her termination against the two vacant posts. Counsel for the State and the Respondent no. 8 submit that the latter has better marks than the petitioner and therefore the petitioner cannot have any 3 claim for seniority over Respondent no. 8 on reinstatement. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that he is not in a position to make any submission on that aspect without proper instruction. The issue of seniority is thus left open for the petitioner to agitate if so advised when the respondents are expected to decide the same in accordance with law after hearing all concerned. Let this order be complied with within a maximum period of two months from the date of receipt and/or production of a copy of this order before Respondent no. 3. The impugned orders dated 24.12.2007, 23.6.2009 and 18.3.2010 directing removal of the petitioner are set aside. The writ application stands allowed. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)