IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6402 of 2008 SUNEETA KUMARI wife of Sudama Prasad, resident of village Kalyanpur, P.S. Udawant Nagar, District Bhojpur .. Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR, 2. The District Magistrate, Bhojpur at Arrah, 3. The District Superintendent of Education, Bhojpur, District Bhojpur, 4. The Block Extension of Education Officer, Udawant Nagar, District Bhojpur, 5. The Headmaster, Primary School, Chaurain, Akuana Gram Panchayat, Block Udawant Nagar, P.S. Udawant Nagar, District Bhojpur, 6. The Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Akauna, Block Udawant Nagar, District Bhojpur, 7. The Gram Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Akauna, Block Udawant Nagar, District Bhojpur, 8. Babita Kumari, wife of Ajay Kumar Sharma, resident of village Kalyanpur, P.S. Udawant Nagar, District Bhojpur For the Petitioner: Mr. Ram Subhash Singh, Advocate For the State: Mr. Madhukar Mishra, AC to GA 9 For Respondent No. 8: Mr.Rajendra Pd.Singh, Sr.Advocate ----------- 3 28.02.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the State and respondent no. 8. Petitioner seeks quashing of order dated 29.02.2008 passed in Miscellaneous Case No. 25/07-08 by the District Magistrate, Bhojpur, whereby and whereunder the representation of the petitioner was dismissed. A further prayer has been made to direct the authority to accept the joining of the petitioner on the post of now Panchayat 2 Teacher, giving effect to Annexure 1, whereby the petitioner was appointed after getting the appointment letter of respondent no. 8 cancelled, who has been appointed subsequently on that post. The petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing C.W.J.C. No. 15388 of 2006, which was disposed of vide order dated 09.08.2007 (as contained in Annexure 3) directing the petitioner to submit an appropriate application before the Collector of the District within a period of four weeks, which would be disposed of on merit by reasoned order within three months from the date of such representation. The petitioner, thus, moved before the Collector of the District concerned and Miscellaneous Case No. 25/07-08 was instituted. However, after hearing the parties including the respondent no. 8, the Collector of the District, respondent no. 2, has rejected the application filed by the petitioner. The petitioner has challenged the aforesaid order dated 29.02.2008. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that before passing the impugned order, the Collector concerned had called for a report on specific point from the District Superintendent of Education regarding the fact as to 3 whether the appointment letter has been issued and served upon the petitioner, however, without obtaining such report, subsequently the order impugned has been passed. Learned counsel has drawn the attention of this Court towards the order dated 18.01.2008 in support of his aforesaid contention. It is also submitted that illegality has been committed in the subsequent appointment of respondent no. 8 as she does not belong to Extremely Backward Caste Category, rather she belongs to “Lohar” caste, thus, her appointment be cancelled. Learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 8 submits that the petitioner has only raised the issue of her joining before the District Magistrate concerned and on the basis of the fact that she was entitled for joining, she has claimed that subsequent appointment of respondent no. 8 should be cancelled. It is submitted that the Collector concerned has dealt with every aspect of the matter and has rejected the claim of the petitioner. After obtaining necessary permission the vacant post was again advertised on 22.06.2005 against which respondent no. 8 and other candidates applied and then the Sukh Suvidha Committee held meeting on 06.07.2005 to consider the selection at the 4 post of Shiksha Mitra and a decision was taken to appoint respondent no. 8. A resolution to that effect was passed and appointment letter was issued on 07.07.2005 and then she had joined the concerned school. Her tenure of eleven months was again renewed and extended for eleven months vide order dated 31.05.2006. Thereafter, respondent no. 8 was absorbed as Panchayat Shikshak after the new Rules came. Learned counsel further submits that without bringing anything on record to show that the appointment of respondent no. 8 is illegal, the petitioner wants cancellation of her appointment after about six years. The Collector concerned has also stated in the impugned order that respondent no. 8 was appointed in accordance with law, thus, has come to the conclusion that the claim of the petitioner does not seem to be acceptable. It is further contended that the petitioner herself has annexed the part of the proceeding book of the Sukh Suvidha Committee, wherein the aforesaid facts stand reflected. Thus, it is contended that this writ application is fit to be rejected. From perusal of the Annexure 4, it appears that on 18.01.2008 the Collector concerned had directed the District Superintendent of Education and the Panchayat Secretary to 5 submit the report concerned. However, in the subsequent order dated 29.02.2008 he has stated that he had heard the parties and perused the reports of the District Superintendent of Education and the Panchayat Secretary as submitted by them. Thereafter, in the impugned order he has discussed the matter of issuance of appointment letter to the petitioner and after hearing the parties and considering the materials available on the record he has come to the conclusion that letters were issued to all the fourteen appointed persons. Everybody appeared except the petitioner and in that event, again a letter under certificate of posting was issued on 16.02.2005. Even then the petitioner did not join. Thereafter from perusal of the proceeding of the Sukh Suvidha Committee, it appears that the petitioner was contacted by the Mukhia concerned also for the purpose of joining but she had refused the same as had been quoted therein. Again on 15.06.2005 the Mukhiya concerned asked her personally to join the post, however, she was reluctant. When she was asked to submit her reluctancy in writing, she was not willing even to do that. Eventually on 06.07.2005 the Sukh Suvidha Committee again held a meeting for the purpose of making appointment on the vacant post as the 6 petitioner did not join and, thereafter, advertisement was made and respondent no. 8 was eventually selected after selection process. The petitioner, in the opinion of this Court, could not point out any error in the impugned order passed by the Collector of the District concerned and as such, I do not find any force in the submission raised on behalf of the petitioner in this regard. Thus, her claim regarding permitting her to join the post cannot be allowed. To that effect, this writ application stands dismissed. So far the subsequent appointment of respondent no. 8 is concerned, it has been contended that the petitioner was appointed on the post reserved for Extremely Backward Caste. But the subsequent appointment has been made without following the roster for reservation. Thus, the petitioner would be at liberty to raise the question of appointment of the respondent no. 8 before the Appellate Tribunal concerned within ten weeks. If such application is filed the same shall be decided by the Tribunal on its own merit and in accordance with law. It is made clear that so far the question of joining of the petitioner is concerned, this Court has already 7 expressed its opinion, as stated hereinabove, and has dismissed the writ application as she could not either show any error in the impugned order passed by the Collector concerned or to show even before this Court that she was willing to join and was not allowed to join the post. Thus, the petitioner would not have liberty to re-agitate that issue. SC (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)