IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8896 of 2010 1. KRISHNA KUMARI W/O SRI SUNIL BAITHA R/O VILL.- BARA JAGANNATH, P.S.- AHIYAPUR, DISTT.- MUZAFFARPUR. VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE DIRECTOR, PRIMARY EDUCATION, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 4. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, MUZAFFARPUR 5. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, MUZAFFARPUR 6. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, KATRA, MUZAFFARPUR 7. THE BLOCK EDUCATION EXTENSION OFFICER, MUZAFFARPUR 8. THE MUKHIYA, GRAM PANCHAYAT YAJUAR, KATRA, MUZAFFARPUR 9. THE PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, GRAM PANCHAYAT- YAJUAR, KATRA, MUZAFFARPUR . ----------- 02 02.08.2010 The petitioner challenges the order passed by the Block Development Officer (B.D.O.), Katra, Muzaffarpur, whereby petitioner’s appointment as Primary Panchayat Teacher has been set aside. The petitioner had applied for appointment to the singular post of Primary Panchayat Teacher scheduled caste female candidate. In fact, in the said Panchayat two posts were available and both were reserved for female candidates, one for scheduled caste and other for unreserved female. After selection was made, one Nilu Jha raised objection that she was trained teacher and, as such, should have been selected. Admittedly, she was claiming the post so far as unreserved is concerned. She laid no claim in respect of reserved post in respect of which petitioner belonged. Still, as apparent from the order of the B.D.O. only on the ground that petitioner was alleged to be related to be one of the members of the Panchayat Samiti, which fact was denied on affidavit by the said member, the selection of the petitioner has - 2 - been set aside. While doing so, the B.D.O. has also noticed in his order that petitioner was the sole applicant for the said post being scheduled caste. Thus, on examination of the facts, it is clear that the objection was filed by one Nilu Jha in respect of unreserved category and her selection, so far as petitioner is concerned, she was scheduled caste candidate and she was the only applicant for the said post. On these facts, in my view, the B.D.O. should not have interfered with the selection at least of the petitioner. There cannot be interference for the sake of interference. Had the B.D.O. found that there was any serious procedural infirmity affecting the merit and selection, so far as petitioner is concerned, it would have been different issue, but where petitioner was the singular applicant the question of bias or other such considerations do not arise? Thus, the impugned order of the B.D.O., being order dated 20.11.2007 is set aside. The petitioner would be deemed to be continuing in service so far as service continuity and seniority and others benefits are concerned, but she will not be entitled to any remuneration for the period for which she had not been working consequent to the impugned order. She will give her joining which would be accepted accordingly within a fortnight. With these observations and directions, the writ application is allowed. Trivedi (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)