IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5966 of 2005 MEENA DEVI @ MEENA KUMARI, W/O Sri Jai Ram Sah, Resident of Village Gajiyapur, P.O. Parsagarh, P.S. Ekama, District Chapra (Saran). Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR 2.The Director Welfare Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 3.The Collector, Chapra (Saran) 4.The District Welfare Department, Chapra. 5.The Child Development Project Officer, Anchal Ekama Chapra (Saran). 6.The Mukhiya Gram Panchayat Raj Eksar, Anchal Ekama. 7.Rinku Kumari @ Rinku Devi, W/O Sri Dhananjay Pandey resident of village Gajiyapur, P.O. Parsagark bazaar P.S. Ekma, District Chapra. ----------- 3 13/11/2009 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 a writ in the nature of Certiorari, quashing the respondent no.7 in which he has appointed in junior persons to the petitioner on the post of sevika or any other writ or writs, direction or directions, commanding the respondent to direct the appoint the petitioner as well as to give all benefits to the petitioner.” With reference to the aforementioned relief counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner despite being better qualified candidate in all respect was ignored in selection and appointment by making appointment of respondent no.7. A counter affidavit has been filed by the official respondents, wherein it has been stated that the petitioner did not appear in the Aam Sabha on the date in question and her case was 2 considered and in fact her application was submitted by her husband in the Aam Sabha held on 30.1.2004 as is evident from the proceeding register. This aspect of the matter has been categorically stated in paragraph nos. 8 and 11 of the counter affidavit. There is no reply to the aforementioned statement taken in the counter affidavit, but the counsel for the petitioner would faintly suggest that against the first name of the petitioner on the said proceeding book of the Gram Sabha there is signature of Mina Devi, which would mean the petitioner had signed on the same. However, when attention of counsel for the petitioner was drawn towards the striking dissimilarity in the signature of the petitioner on the affidavited portion of the Vakalatnama vis-à-vis the one on the proceedings filed by the respondents in their counter affidavit, counsel for the petitioner fairly agreed that such signature on the proceedings cannot be said to be the signature of the petitioner. If such statement of counsel for the petitioner is taken into account it would appear that the petitioner had not been personally present before the Aam Sabha, whereas, requirement under law according to the government circular dated 27.9.2005 is that the personal appearance of the candidate in the Aam Sabha is a condition precedent and mandatory for such selection. In this context it will be apt to quote the relevant provision as has been given in Clause-10 which reads as follows:- “X-vke lHkk esa vkosfndk dh mifLFkfr vfuok;Z gksxh rFkk vke lHkk esa mi;ZqaDr izfdz;k ls voxr djkus ds Ik’pkr~ lsfodk ds fy, ik=rk j[kus okys lHkh mEehnokjksa ls viuk gLrfyf[kr vkosnu i= iqu%izkIr fd;k tk;sxk] vxj vkosfndk mifLFkr ugha gksrh gS rks muds vkosnu dks 3 lh/ks jn~n dj fn;k tk;sxk A” That being so, as the petitioner did not comply the aforesaid mandatory conditions prescribed in the circular of the State Government she cannot be allowed to raise any grievance as with regard to her being not selection/appointed. Consequently, this Court would find no merit in this application and the same is accordingly dismissed. Abhay Kumar (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)