IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11511 of 2010 ====================================================== 1. Kumari Archna Priya W/O Ram Udgar Rai R/O Vill.- Nayaganj (28) Tola, P.O. Nayaganj, Panchayat Nayaganj, East, Desari, Distt.- Vaishali .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar Through The Director, Social Development Department, Bihar, Patna 2. The Commissioner, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur 3. The District Officer, Vaishali At Hajipur 4. The Deputy Development Commissioner, Vaishali At Hajipur 5. The Child Development Project Officer, Sahadei Bujurg, Vaishali 6. Sita Devi W/O Amarnath Sah R/O Vill.- Nayaganj, Sahar Toli, P.S. Desari, Distt.- Vaishali .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ram Shankar Prasad For the Respondent/s : Mr. (Gp6) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA) 2 18-11-2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner and respondent No.6 were applicants for the post of Angan Bari Sevika. The respondent came to be appointed. The petitioner questioned the same before the District Magistrate in Misc. Case No.108/08-09. On 21.1.2008, the District Magistrate held that the petitioner had higher marks in Matriculation and therefore was entitled for appointment. The private respondent successfully questioned the order before the Commissioner and the appeal allowed on 23.11.2009. Patna High Court CWJC No.11511 of 2010 (2) dt.18-11-2011 2 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the guidelines in Clause-6(a) contemplated preparation of a select list for appointment only on basis of the marks obtained in the eligibility qualifying examination. The petitioner and the private respondent were both Matriculates. The petitioner had higher marks. The District Magistrate rightly held in favour of the petitioner. The modus adopted by the respondents in subjecting the candidates to a competitive test was contrary to the guidelines. The petitioner had raised other issues also with regard to the ineligibility of the private respondent based on lack of residence of the beneficiary area and as not belonging below the poverty line. The appellate authority has failed to consider these aspects. Learned counsel for the State submitted that there had been no deviation from the procedure prescribed in the guidelines. Following the same, if the respondents only adopted an additional method to chose the best agent possible, it cannot be classified as outright arbitrary requiring interference. The petitioner participated in the written examination and has questioned the same after being unsuccessful. The appointment was to be of an agent for a Principal, the State Government. The object was the dissemination of a welfare scheme for the down trodden by the latter. Who is a Patna High Court CWJC No.11511 of 2010 (2) dt.18-11-2011 3 better suited agent, is for the Principal to decide and not for the Court to thrust an agent upon an unwilling Principal. The guidelines framed for selection are administrative in nature and not statutory. If the respondents required the applicants fulfilling the minimum eligibility criteria to be subjected to a written examination for deciding their suitability, capability and efficiency for discharge of duties as an agent, the Court finds it difficult to hold that the procedure was so patently arbitrary or illegal so as to interfere. The candidate may have been a Matriculate with good marks. If the Principal wanted to satisfy itself by performance in a written examination so that the candidate actually had the qualification and capability as reflected in the Matriculation certificate, it cannot be held to be grossly and patently arbitrary requiring interference. The petitioner acknowledges participation in the written examination without any protest. It is not open for her after being unsuccessful having obtained marks lesser than the private respondent, to question the selection process itself. She cannot be permitted to approbate and reprobate. Even if the petitioner had raised the question of eligibility of the private respondent on grounds of lack of residence and not belonging under the poverty line, still the Court can decline interference at the behest of her locus as a Patna High Court CWJC No.11511 of 2010 (2) dt.18-11-2011 4 failed candidate fishing in troubled waters. Had it related to service in the Government, the considerations for the Court would have been entirely different. The District Magistrate did not decide other issues of eligibility. The petitioner did not raise other issues that all questions had not been decided by the District Magistrate. There was no occasion for the Appellate Authority to decide on an issue, not decided by the District Magistrate and thus not raised in the appeal. In the entirety, the Court finds no reason to interfere. This is without prejudice to the petitioner to avail appropriate remedies under the civil laws of the land under the appropriate civil forum. The application is dismissed. Krishna Chandra Jha/- (Navin Sinha, J)