IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6123 of 2009 SHOBHA SRIVASTAVA, wife of Sudhir Chandra Srivastava, resident of Village Madhopur, Police Statation Simari, District Darbhanga. Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR 2.The District Magistrate, Darbhanga, District Darbhanga. 3.The Sub.Divisional Officer, District Darbhanga. 4.The Block Development Officer, Block Singhwara District Darbhanga. 5.The Selection Committee represented the SARPANCH of Panchayat Raj Madhopur Bastwara Panchayat District Darbhanga. 6.The Sarpanch, Madhopur Bastwara Panchayat, District Darbhanga. 7.Lalan Paswan son of not known, resident of village Madhopur, Police Station Simari, District Darbhanga. Appointed as Secretary of GRAMA KUTCHERY, MADHOPUR BASTWARA PUNCHAYAT RAJ MADHOPUR BASTWARA, BLOCK SINGHWARA, District Darbhanga. ----------- 2 18/5/2009 Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. Grievance of the petitioner in this writ application is only confined to non consideration or being edged out by the respondent no.7 while being considered for appointment on the post of Sachiw in Gram Kachhari Madhopur BASTWARA. There is no denial to the fact that though the post of such Sachiw in question was execlusively reserved for general female category but the same got filled up by appointment of respondent no. 7 only because no persons of the female categories were found to be suitable. Counsel for the petitioner, however, has submitted that the petitioner was duly qualified and had passed Madhyama examination which is equivalent to matriculation, but then since the relevant circular was not issued by the Secretary of the Human Resources department the authorities did not give due weightage to the case of the petitioner who despite having more marks in matric level examination (Madhyama) has not been appointed and 2 respondent no.7, Lalan Paswan who was less qualified than the petitioner has been appointed. There is no difficulty in accepting this much of the case of the petitioner that the respondents in view of even earlier government policy were required to consider the case of the petitioner on the basis that she being qualified as a Madhyama candidate had to be held eligible for the post of Sachiw. If therefore the petitioner was not considered as eligible candidate and respondent no.7 having lesser marks was appointed in preference to her, such appointment cannot be countenanced in law. Since respondent no. 7 is not before this Court and the matter would require further detailed enquiry, this Court would direct the Collector of the district to look into this aspect and decide the same within a period of four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order and if the Collector finds that the post of Sachiw in question was exclusively reserved for female category and that the petitioner had more marks in Madhyama examination held to be equivalent to Matriculation examination than respondent no.7, he would after giving opportunity of hearing to respondent no.7, take an appropriate decision and in the event it is found that respondent no.7 has no better claim for appointment his appointment on the post of SACHIV of Gram Kachhari in question shall be terminated and in his place petitioner will be appointed. On the other hand, if it is 3 found that respondent no. 7 has better claim, the Collector will pass a reasoned order while rejecting the case of the petitioner. The application stands finally disposed of with the aforementioned directions/observations. Abhay Kumar (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)