IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7064 of 2009 MENAKA MEHTA @ KUMARI MENKA MEHTA, D/o Radha Mohan Mehta, resident of village-Bathe, P.S.-Parasi, District-Arwal and Wife of Ganesh Kumar Gunjan, resident of village-Rakasia, P.S.-Dulhin Bazar, District-Patna. ………..Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar through Chief Secretary of Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. Secretary of Human Resources of Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. Director of Primary Education, Government of Bihar, Patna. 4. District Superintendent of Education, Patna. 5. Pramukh of Panchayat Samiti of Block Dulhin Bazar, Patna. 6. The Executive Officer of Panchayat Samiti, Block-Dulhin Bazar, Patna. 7. Block Education Extension Officer, Dulhin Bazar, Patna. 8. Block Development Officer, Dulhin Bazar, Patna. ……….Respondents. ----------- 3/ 26.03.2010 Heard counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing for the State. The writ application has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer to restrain the respondents 6, 7 & 8 from selecting and appointing anyone on the post of Prakhand Teacher till the case of the petitioner is also considered on merit. Petitioner had applied for the post of Prakhand Teacher on 11.11.2008 against reserved backward category. She has completed her M.A. and B. Ed. Course with Ist Division marks. The B. Ed. course had been completed by the petitioner as regular student from Bhilai Maitri College Risali Sector Bhilai, Chhattisgarh, which is an institution recognized by N.C.T.E. with effect from Session 2003-2004. The petitioner completed her B.Ed. course in 2007-08. Petitioner’s grievance is that, despite the fact that she had higher marks than the selected candidates for being - 2 - appointed as Trained Prakhand Teacher, respondent authorities have arbitrarily ignored her merit, observing all illegal process. Candidates having lesser marks were appointed and their names put in the panel of the selected candidates. The total number of posts to be filled in the selection process was 78 and the name of petitioner was at serial no. 21 in the panel. Despite this fact, she was not issued appointment letter and others having lesser marks were selected and appointed against the post. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 6 to 8, in which only ground for not considering the candidature of the petitioner is that the name of the institution, from which the petitioner has completed her B. Ed. course, is not included in the C.D., in which the names of recognized institutions are mentioned. It is also stated that the institution, Bhilai Matri Collge, Risali, Chhattisgarh is not a recognized institution, as such petitioner could not have been appointed as a trained Prakhand Teacher. Further, it is stated that petitioner has not mentioned anywhere that in which session she has completed her B. Ed. course. Petitioner has filed reply to the counter affidavit, denying allegations made in the counter affidavit. It is in the pleadings of main writ application itself that petitioner had completed her B. Ed. course in the Session 2007-08. Petitioner has also annexed documents in support of this fact that institution from where she has completed her B. Ed. course is recognized by N.C.T.E. On - 3 - perusal of Annexure-4 series, it is apparent that the institution from where the petitioner had completed her B. Ed. course is recognized by the N.C.T.E. with effect from the Sessions 2003- 04 and for the Session 2007-08 also recognition was there. The documents also indicate that petitioner as a regular student had completed her general education as well as training course. Considering these facts, there is no obvious reason for not selecting and appointing the petitioner on the post of Prakhand Teacher, even though her name is there in the merit list. No other candidate had higher marks than the petitioner. Petitioner has got 78 % marks and highest marks obtained by candidates in reserved as well as un-reserved female category is 68 %. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is apparent that there was no valid reason for not issuing appointment letter in favour of the petitioner considering that her name is in the panel at serial no. 21 with higher marks than the other selected candidates. This application is allowed, giving direction to the respondent Nos. 6, 7 & 8 i.e. The Executive Officer of Panchayat Samiti, Block-Dulhin Bazar, Patna, Block Education Extension Officer, Dulhin Bazar, Patna and the Block Development Officer, Dulhin Bazar, Patna, to issue appointment letter in favour of the petitioner considering the fact that her name is in the panel at serial No. 21. She has highest marks and number of posts - 4 - against which appointment is to be made, are much more than 21. The respondents will issue appointment letter in favour of the petitioner considering the facts and circumstances of the case, within a period of four weeks from the date of production/communication of the order. Sanjeet/ (Mridula Mishra, J.)