IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3346 of 2011 MADHU KUMARI W/O TETAR KUMAR RAI, R/O VILL.- JANIDIH, PO+PS-GHOGHA, DISTT.-BHAGALPUR-PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. PRINCIPAL SECY. PANCHAYAT RAJ, NEW SECRETARIAT,PATNA BIHAR 3. DIRECTOR,PANCHAYATI RAJ,NEW SECRETARIAT,PATNA 4. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, BHAGALPUR 5. B.D.O.-CUM-C.O.KAHALGAON,BHAGALPUR 6. SARPUNCH, JANIDIH GRAM PANCHAYAT,BLOCK-KAHALGAON DISTT.- BHAGALPUR 7. KUMARI PUJA GOSWAMI W/O KAMESHWARI GOSWAMI, R/O VILL- JANIDIH, PO-GHOGHA, PS-KAHALGAON,DISTT- BHAGALPUR ---------------------------------RESPONDENT ----------- 2 7.7.2011 Heard learned counsel for the parties. The long narration or the grievance of the petitioner has lost its meaning due to several rounds of litigation initiated by the petitioner with regard to a selection or short listing carried out in the year 2007. The object of target of the petitioner was one Archana Kumari whose name purposely was smuggled in at a subsequent stage. But in the present round of the litigation she is no where near the radar screen to be found because it is evident from annexure-9 that the respondent authorities have carried out a fresh exercise and new panel of names based on marks obtained by the candidates who were applicants was drawn up. This time one Kumari Puja Goswami figures at serial no.1 with 68.625% marks whereas petitioner has 60% marks. In annexure-9 name of petitioner figures at serial no.3. After this merit list was drawn up in which petitioner was also a claimant, she came to the High Court again raising a grievance that the Collector has not taken a decision in terms of the earlier direction of the High Court but the Block Development Officer had - 2 - done it. The Court therefore vide annexure-10 directed the District Magistrate to hear the petitioner and take a decision and annexure-11 is the result of such decision which is subject matter of challenge in the present writ application. Contention of learned counsel is that the claim of the petitioner was again given a go-bye and a third person has now been appointed on the post of Gram Kutchery Secretary. Therefore original allegation or grievance in no way gets answered. It is evident from the narration that this litigation has been dragging on right from 2007 till now. To some extent even the petitioner has made contribution. So far as the validity of the decision contained in annexure-11 is concerned it is evident that the authority decided to go for a fresh selection. In the fresh list contained in annexure-9 there are people with better marks and higher percentage and one of those persons having higher marks, namely, Kumari Puja Goswami has been ordered to be appointed. In this background the petitioner’s claim for her appointment has to be given a go-bye as a better candidate emerged in the above stated circumstances and the District Magistrate has only given a direction to appoint such a person which cannot be said to be at the cost of the petitioner. This writ application has no merit and it is dismissed. RPS (Ajay Kumar Tripathi,J.)