IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14625 of 2011 Ravikesh Prabhakar son of Gagan Deo Rai, resident of Village- Yadav Pur Bakhari, P.S.-Dhaka, District-East Champaran (Motihari). .......Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. The Director Panchati Raj, Bihat at Patna. 3. The Secretary Panchayati Raj, Bihat at Patna. 4. The Secretary Rural Development Department, Bihar at Patna. 5. The District Magistrate, East Champaran at Motihari. 6. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Sikrahana, Motihari. 7. The District Panchayati Raj Officer, East Champaran at Motihari. 8. The B.D.O. Dhaka, East Champaran at Motihari. 9. The Nodal Officer, Gram Kachhari, Bhagwanpur, District-East Champaran. 10. The Sarpunch, Gram Kachhari, Bhagwanpur, P.O.-Yadavpur Bakhari, P.S.-Dhaka, District-East Champaran. 11. Smt. Sheema Kumari wife of Suraj Nandan Sharma, resident of Village-Bakhari, Khajuri, Post-Barharwa Fateh Mohammad, P.S.- Dhaka, District-East Champaran. ........Respondents ----------- 02 20.10.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. Appointment of the petitioner on the post of Secretary Gram Kachhari for Bhagwanpur Gram Panchayat, became a subject matter of challenge before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sikrahana. Allegation was made that even though this post was reserved for backward female category, appointment was made of the petitioner by ignoring her claim and showing her to be absent from the counseling. Matter was heard, a finding was recorded that the selection of the petitioner was manipulated by the Sarpunch to accommodate the petitioner by deliberately showing that respondent no. 11 did not appear in the counseling, even though she had the 2 highest marks. Not only this, there is also a finding which has also been affirmed by the Appellate Authority, namely, Collector East Champaran, Motihari that the requisite selection process in terms of Bihar Gram Kachehari Sachiv (Niyojan) Sewa Shart and Kartvya Niyamawali 2007, especially Rule 6 (6) was not followed, if not given a go by. In fact, if there is a breach of the said provision, then the very constitution of the panel which made the selection gets vitiated. With the findings of such kind not having been controverted by any unimpeachable evidence, obviously the selection of the petitioner cannot be sustained nor can it be too ordered to remain intact by interfering with the impugned orders. Writ has not merit, which is dismissed. Safik (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)