IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.1594 of 2010 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 11608 of 2010 ====================================================== 1. Neelam Kumari W/O Rajesh Kumar And D/O Ram Babu Mishra R/O Vill.- Bahera, Jahidpur, P.S.+P.O.- Nanpur, Distt.- Sitamarhi .... .... Appellant/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The District Magistrate, Sitamarhi 3. The District Superintendent Of Education Officer, Sitamarhi 4. The District Teacher Employment Appellate Tribunal, Sitamarhi, Through Human Resource Department, Bihar, Patna 5. The Block Development Officer, Nanpur Block, Distt.- Sitamarhi 6. The Panchayat Secretary Gram Panchayat Raj, Bahera, Jahidpur, Distt.- Sitamarhi 7. The Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Raj, Bahera, Jahidpur Block, Nanpur, Distt.- Sitamarhi 8. Manisha Kumari W/O Sri Parvindra Kumar Mishra R/O Vill.- Bahera Jahidpur, P.S.+P.O.- Nanpur, Distt.- Sitamarhi .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== 4 05-12-2011 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the order of the Writ Court. The Writ Court has found that at best the appointment of Manish Kumari, respondent no.8 herein, made in the year 2005 on the post of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra suffered from irregularity and the District Primary Panchayat Teachers Appointment Appellate Tribunal should not have interfered with her appointment on the basis of a petition filed before the Tribunal in the year 2009 when both the candidates had equal points and the Patna High Court LPA No.1594 of 2010 (4) dt.05-12-2011 2 selection was made in favour of Manisha Kumari because she had studied up to BA Part II whereas the appellant had studied upto BA Part I only. No doubt, neither of the candidates had completed graduation but it was a matter of discretion as to how the selection committee should resolve the tie. It was done on the basis of extent of higher studies and not on the basis of age. Considering that there was no mandate of rule or law governing this matter, in our view, the Writ Court rightly considered the alleged defect in selection of Manisha Kumari to be only an irregularity. Considering that Manisha Kumari was selected in accordance with rules without violating any provisions of the policy and she had worked for more than four years when the Tribunal decided to interfere in the matter, we are of the considered view that the Writ Court’s order requires no interference. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. sk (Shiva Kirti Singh, J) (Shivaji Pandey, J)