IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11429 of 2007 NASIMA KHATOON wife of Aftab Alam, resident of village Vishambharpur, Prakhand-majhaulia, Panchayat Vishambharpur, Ward No.5, P.S. Bettiah Mofassil, Disrict-West Champaran. Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR 2.Director, Panchayat Raj, Bihar, Patna. 3.District Magistrate, West Champaran, Bettiah. 4.Deputy Development Commissioner, West Champaran, bettiah. 5.Block Development Officer, Majhaulia, West Champaran. 6.Child Development project Officer, Majhaulia, West Champaran. 7.Kamal Deo Prasad, mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Raj, Vishambharpur, P.S. Bettiah Mofassil, District West Champaran. 8.Paras Sah, Panchayat Sachiv, Gram Panchayat Raj, Vishambharpur, P.S. Bettiah Mofassil, District West Champaran. 9.Pravin Ara W/O abdul Wahid Ansari r/o Village Vishambharpur, p.S. Bettiah Mofassil, District West Champaran. ----------- 2 4/12/2009 Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. Prayer of the petitioner in this writ application reads as follows:- “That this is an application for issuance of writ/order/direction, particularly in the nature of writ of mandamus directing the respondent authorities to appoint the petitioner on the post of Angan Badi Sevika in place of respondent no.9, who appears to have been selected for the post by adopting great irregularities in selection process.” Counsel for the petitioner with reference to the aforementioned prayer would submit that when the 2 representation filed by the petitioner before the Collector of the district did not bear any result she was compelled to file this writ application. Counsel for the State on the other hand has referred to paragraph no. 8 of the counter affidavit which reads as follows:- "That with regard to the averments made in paragraph no. 5 to 9 of the writ petition, it is stated that on the complaint of the petitioner, an enquiry was made by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Bettiah Sadar and it was found in that there were only five applicants for the post in question and out of them in the merit list, the petitioner was at serial no. 4 ad respondent no. 9 at serial no. 5. The case of applicant at serial no. 1 was rejected by the Aam Sabha since her father-in- law was found to be serving as a teacher at the relevant time. The case of applicant at serial no. 2 was rejected as she did not produce the original marks sheet. The case of applicant at serial no. 3 was rejected as she did not come from the beneficiary area. The case of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that she was already working as a teacher in "Hamara Aangan" and getting the remuneration. Moreover, she did not even attend/appeared in Aam Sabha held on 24.05.2007. Hence, the respondent no. 9, although standing at the bottom of the merit list was the only candidate eligible for the post and hence was appointed. In the enquiry, it was further detected that the 3 petitioner had made interpolation in the resignation letter submitted by her, i.e. the same was though submitted on 29.05.2007, it was rewritten as 29.04.2007 after cutting 29.05.2007. This fact finds further support from the certificate dated 24.05.2007 issued by the Head Mistress, Bishwambharpur Government Primary School, in which it was been said that the petitioner is working in “Hamara Aagan” in primary school. With regard to the allegation that the father of respondent no. 9 is employed as a doctor in government service. It is stated that it was found in the enquiry that her father has already retired. It is further stated that in fact the petitioner is yet continuing as teacher in “Hamara Angan” Vidyalaya.” Counsel for the petitioner had admitted that on 8.2.1987 when the petitioner had filed an application for selection and appointment on the post of Anganbari Sevika she was already employed in HAMARA ANGAN which is an office of profit. Her case, however, is that the date on which Aam Sabha was held i.e, 24.5.2007 her resignation had already stood accepted and therefore she could not have been disqualified on the ground that she had been employed in HAMARA ANGAN. Counsel for the State, however, would submit that the resignation of the petitioner was not accepted prior to 24.5.2007 and in fact there seems to be interpolation in the date with regard to continuation and 4 acceptance of resignation. This aspect has been further explained by stating that there is certificate showing the petitioner working in the HAMARA ANGAN VIDHYALAYA on 24.5.2007, and in fact her such resignation was accepted on 25.9.2007 and therefore the petitioner stood disqualified in terms of the eligibility condition as laid down by the State Government in the guidelines. On the basis of pleading on record, this Court will have no difficulty in holding that as on 8.2.2007, the date on which the petitioner had filed her application she had definitely been working in the HAMARA ANGAN VIDHYALAYA. The condition of the eligibility has to be governed on the date of filing of an application and not on the date of selection and therefore without going into controversy as with regard to actual date of resignation of the petitioner from HAMARA ANGAN VIDHAYALAYA and its acceptance, it must be held that on the date of filing of an application the petitioner was already employed in HAMARA ANGAN VIDAYALAYA and as such she had not fulfiled the eligibility condition and consequently her selection and appointment was rightly not made by the Aam Sabha. This Court however would also find that the Respondent have themselves accepted the father of Respondent no. 9 was a retired government doctor and 5 therefore the Collector of district will hold an enquiry and pass a speaking order after hearing the petitioner, Respondent no. 9 and the representative of concerned Gram Panchayat in accordance with law within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. With the aforesaid observation and direction this application is dismissed. Abhay Kumar (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)