IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1924 of 2009 BISHESA RANI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 2 9/2/2009 Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by an order of removal of her name from the panel of constable which was prepared on the basis of the persons having higher point/ marks in the reserved category of backward being available in which the petitioner could not have been selected and/or appointed. Counsel for the petitioner in this context has drawn attention of this Court to the resolution of the committee as contained in the letter of the Superintendent of Police, Sitamarhi dated 14th December, 2007, and has submitted that if three of them, namely, Shanti Kumari, Manisha Kumari and Sangita Kumari had not filed their certificates so as to claim benefit of reservation their selection and appointment as candidates of reserve category was and they could not have been given preference and/or favourable 2 treatment of claiming such reservation by filing of their application(s) with documents after cut off date. In other words, learned counsel is of the view that earlier decision taken by the committee for appointment on the post of constable showing the petitioner to be eligible in her category based on her evaluation of marks/criteria for reservation could not have been questioned by subsequent production of certificate by Shanti Kumari, Manisha Kumari and Sangita Kumari. Counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that when as a matter of fact the selection of the petitioner was already made, removal of her name from the panel and that too without any show cause notice is wholly arbitrary and unreasonable. Counsel for the State on the other hand has submitted that in absence of Shanti Kumari, Manisha Kumari and Sangita Kumari as respondents to this application, the allegations made by the petitioner against them cannot be looked into by this Court and this writ application on this 3 ground alone is not maintainable. He further submits that this essential question of fact as to whether Shanti Kumari, Manisha Kumari and Sangita Kumari had filed their certificates prior to cut off date or after cut off date has to be looked into by the fact finding authority, i.e, the Deputy Inspector of Military Police (Central Range), Patna. In the opinion of this Court, this writ application with specific allegation against three of them, namely, Shanti Kumari, Manisha Kumari and Sangita Kumari is not maintainable because any order that may be passed may adversely affect them, as would be apparent from the letter of the Superintendent of Police as contained in Annexure-2 and the consequential report submitted to the Deputy Inspector General of Military Police (Central Range) Patna as contained in Annexure-8. This Court, however, taking into consideration that the petitioner had already been appointed and had also undergone training would not dismiss this writ application on the aforesaid 4 technical ground and would only give liberty to the petitioner to approach the Deputy Inspector General of Military Police (Central Range),Patna by filing a representation within a period of one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Such representation filed by the petitioner along with a copy of this order will be examined by the said Deputy Inspector General of Military Police (Central Range), Patna who will hold his enquiry and record as to, whether Shanti Kumari, Manisha Kumari and Sangita Kumari had filed their certificates claiming reservation in the backward category before last date of closure of receiving the application. If it is found that they too did not file their certificate claiming their consideration under backward category they will not be considered under reservation category and consequently they will have to be treated to be of general category. If, however, by mistake in course of preparation of panel their names were left out even though they 5 had claimed for appointment under the reservation category by fulfilling all the terms and conditions of the appointment, the Deputy Inspector General of Military Police (Central Range), Patna will examine whole process of selection of the petitioner vis-à-vis the aforesaid three ladies, namely, Shanti Kumari, Manisha Kumari and Sangita kumari and pass a reasoned order as with regard to deciding the case and claim of the petitioner. In view of the fact that the petitioner had worked for certain period and a limited right to defend her appointment had become available to her, this Court in order to end her miseries would direct the aforesaid Deputy Inspector General of Military Police (Central Range), Patna to take expeditious decision in the matter preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. It goes without saying that if the petitioner’s claim is found to be valid, she would definitely be reinstated in 6 service, but in case the petitioner’s claim was below in merit list in preference to Shanti Kmari, Manisha Kumari and Sangita Kumari on account of they being placed higher in the merit list, the D.I.G of Military Police will also give reasons for arriving at the said conclusion. Any decision affecting the petitioner vis-avis Shanti Kumari, Manisha Kumari and Sangita Kumari must be taken after affording opportunity of personal hearing to all of them and/or any other person who may be affected by the decision taken by the D.I.G of Military Police. Such exercise must be completed by the D.I.G of Military police within the aforementioned period. With the aforementioned observation and direction this application is disposed of. (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.) Abhay Kumar