IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE NO.17064 OF 2007 NIRA KUMARI,D/O GIRISH NANDAN SINGH, R/O BASANTPATTI, P.S PURNAHIA, DISTRICT SHEOHAR BIHAR). -----------PETITIONER. VERSUS 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2.COMMISSIONER CUM SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3.DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, SHEOHAR. 4.D.D.C SHEOHAR, DISTT SHEOHAR. 5.BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, PURNAHIA, DISTRICT SHEOHAR. 6.MUKHIYA BASANTPATTI GRAM PANCHAYAT, DISTRICT SHEOHAR. 7.PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, BASANTPATTI GRAM PANCHAYAT,DISTRICT SHEOHAR. 8.RINA KUMARI, W/O RAM EKBAL SINGH, W/O SUDHIR SINGH, R/O BASANTPATTI ,P.S PURNAHIA, DISTT. SHEOHAR. -----------RESPONDENTS. ------------- 02/ 09.09.2011 Having heard Mr. Surendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State, this Court would not find any merit in the challenge of the petitioner in the order cancelling her appointment on the post of Panchayat Shikshak, because it is an admitted fact that the petitioner had obtained only 570 out of 900 marks (63.33 per cent) whereas one Rina Kumari Respondent no. 9 despite having secured 573 out of 900 (63.66 per cent) had been ignored and denied such appointment. The rest of the submission of Mr. Singh that Respondent no. 9 had not appeared for counseling and therefore, her 2 candidature had been ignored has been sufficiently answered by the Competent Authority while passing under Rule 18 of the Bihar Panchayat Elementary Teachers Employment and Service Condition Rules- 2006, wherein, it has been held that the story of the information given to Smt. Rina Kumari from a different post office (Chandiha) despite availability of post office in the Panchayat itself (Basantpatti) and the fact that there were two merit lists prepared by the Committee and the same was also not produced before the Inquiry Committee, are definitely reflective of the fact that the petitioner was sought to be favoured despite having lower marks and position in merit list. Thus the cancellation of appointment of the petitioner and appointment of Respondent no. 8 in her place by the impugned order would require no interference of this Court. In that view of the matter, this Court would find no merit in this writ application and it is, accordingly, dismissed. (Mihir Kumar Jha, J) Ranjan