IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.1602 of 2009 1. ANITA SINHA W/O SRI CHANDRA SHEKHARA PRASAD R/O MOH- MAFATLAL GALI, MOTIJHEEL, P.S. MUZAFFARPUR TOWN, DISTT. MUZAFFARPUR Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE COMMISSIONER TIRHUT DIVISION, MUZAFFARPUR 3. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE MUZAFFARPUR 4. THE CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME OFFICER MUSHHARI BLOCK, DISTT. MUZAFFARPUR 5. RITA KUMARI JAISWAL W/O MADAN CHOUDHARY R/O MOTIJHEEL, BANE POLICE GALI, P.S. MUZAFFARPUR TOWN, DISTT. MUZAFFARPUR ----------- 3 10.1.2011 Having heard counsel for the parties and for the reasons mentioned in the limitation petition, the delay in filing of this appeal is condoned. Coming to the merits of this case, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge who has rightly allowed the writ petition of Respondent no.5 Rita Kumari Jaiswal. There is no dispute that on the basis of a selection list for the post of Anganbari Sevika, one Baby Kumari was appointed ignoring the candidates securing higher marks and place in the panel. Such appointment of Baby Kumari was assailed by the appellant-herein, and the competent authority had set aside appointment of Baby Kumari and directed to appoint the appellant. The aforesaid order of the Authority was assailed by the Respondent no.5 the writ petitioner on the ground that not only she was above the appellant in the panel but also she had obtained higher marks, which was the qualifying criteria, in comparison to 2 the appellant. The learned Single Judge consequently has held that the vacancy caused by removal of Baby Kumari was to be filled up from the said panel and the claim of writ petitioner Rita Kumari Jaiswal was rightly allowed by setting aside the appointment of the appellant and directing for reconsideration by undergoing a fresh process of selection following the prescribed procedure. The submission of learned counsel for the appellant that since the appellant alone had moved the authority and the respondent writ petitioner or any other candidates had not raised any grievance against the appointment of Baby Kumari, no flaw could be found in the resultant direction of the authority for appointing the appellant. is to be only noted for its being rejected. It is not in doubt that the writ petitioner Respondent no.5 had secured higher marks in the qualifying examination to both the appellant and Baby Kumari and therefore the Authority was under obligation to issue a direction for appointment of the best person who was at the top of the panel against the vacancy caused by removal of Baby Kumari. This having been not done, the Respondent no.5 having a better claim for the appointment had rightly moved this Court and the order of the learned Single Judge setting aside the appointment of the appellant having lesser marks to the Respondent no.5 does not suffer from any error. We also do not find any error in the order of the learned Single Judge directing a fresh selection and preparation of 3 panel for filling up the vacancy on the post of Angan bari Sevika. We would accordingly affirm the same and dismiss this appeal. Abhay Kumar (T. Meena Kumari, J.) ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)