IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16618 of 2008 CHANCHALA KUMARI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 03. 24.09.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, for the State and for respondent no. 9. The petitioner was selected and appointed as Anganwari Sewika. She was terminated on 15.10.2008, holding her ineligible for appointment on basis of her matriculate qualification from the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Prayag, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as ‘The Sammellan’). A Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No. 28 of 2010 has held that if the State Government did not recognize the qualification from that Institution, such persons were not eligible to be considered for appointment. The petitioner holds qualification of matriculate from the Sammelan. Simultaneous with her termination, directions were issued for a fresh selection process. Respondent no. 9 preferred C.W.J.C. No. 11676 of 2009 for enforcement of the latter part of the order. The court directed the District Programme Officer to enforce his own order within a period of one month. The petitioner challenged the order in 2 L.P.A. No. 1648 of 2009. The Division Bench then requested expeditious disposal of the present application. The petitioner was appointed on basis of 85 % marks based on the qualification from the Sammelan alone. She therefore becomes ineligible for consideration and stands ousted from serial 1 position in the merit panel. Respondent no.9 had 50.8% marks based on her matriculate qualification from an acceptable institution. She secured further 10% marks each based on her Intermediate qualification and graduate qualification from the Sammelan. Her aggregate marks was 70.8%. Reducing her marks for the qualifications from the Sammelan she stands at 50.8%. In the merit list dated 15.9.2008 appended to the supplementary affidavit of the petitioner dated 2.2.2010, the next candidate Manju Devi had 54.3% marks, but was held ineligible being the daughter-in-law of a Ward Member. The other two in the panel had lesser marks than respondent no.9. This Court is satisfied that there is no need to interfere with the appointment of respondent no. 9. But, learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of submissions has produced another merit panel 3 dated 7.3.2007 signed by the Mukhiya which is at variance with the merit panel dated 15.9.2008. Both panels are signed by the Mukhiya. The panel dated 7.3.2007 shows Manju Devi as having got 54.33% at variance to the panel dated 15.9.2008 showing her to have obtained 51.35%. Likewise, the panel dated 7.3.2007 places Rekha Rani at Serial No. 3 with 51.12%. She is at serial No. 5 in the panel dated 15.9.2008 with 45.44%. Gunja Kumari is serial no. 5 in panel dated 7.3.2007, with 49.57%, but she is serial No. 4 in the panel dated 15.9.2008 with 49.5%. Since the panel dated 7.3.2007 has been placed during submissions from outside the records and learned counsel for the respondents have not had an opportunity to contest the same, let the petitioner file a representation before the District Magistrate. The District Magistrate shall call for the original records and satisfy himself which is the correct panel. The original records shall be examined in front of the petitioner and respondent no. 9. If the District Magistrate is satisfied that the panel dated 15.9.2008 is the correct panel and the petitioner is not in a position to satisfy the District Magistrate otherwise, this court holds that the selection of the 4 respondent no. 9 need not be interfered. But, if the situation be otherwise the District Magistrate is naturally required to hold the entire selection process to be vitiated and proceed with a fresh advertisement and selection. Let the District Magistrate take such appropriate decision within a maximum period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order after hearing all concerned. The application stands disposed. P.K. (Navin Sinha, J.)