Farhat Begam v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13281 of 2017 ====================================================== Farhat Begam, Daughter of Md. Ikram Ansari, Wife of Md. Ikbal Ansari, Resident of Village- Ibhraimpur, Sajour, P.S.- Sajour, District- Bhagalpur. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

The Principal Secretary, Education Department, Government of Bihar, Vikas Bhawan, Patna.

3.

The Director, Secondary Education, Education Department, Government of BIhar, Vikas Bhawan, patna.

4.

The Zila Parishad, Bhagalpur through the Deputy Development Commissioner, Bhagalpur.

5.

The Chairman, Zila Parishad, Bhagalpur.

6.

The Deputy Development Commissioner, Bhagalpur. 7.

The District Education Officer, Bhagalpur.

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Bankey Bihari Singh, Advocate Mr. Alim Jang Khan, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Madanjit Kumar, GP- 20 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPADHYAY ORAL ORDER 18-02-2020 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents.

Mr. Banke Bihari Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that out of the panel prepared in the year 2012 for appointments, others have been appointed but the petitioner has been discriminated.

Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that the name of the petitioner does not figure in the panel, which is seriously controverted by the counsel appearing

Patna High Court CWJC No.13281 of 2017(2) dt.18-02-2020 2/2 on behalf of the petitioner. He placed reliance Annexure-4 to contend that the name of the petitioner figures in the panel. Considering the fact that in the matters of public employment, there is no question of pick and choose. The authorities are under obligation to maintain uniform standard and out of the same panel, if appointments have been made, there is no reason to deny appointment to the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to take appropriate decision with regard to the claim of the petitioner in the light of Annexure- 4 at the earliest preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. (Anil Kumar Upadhyay, J) uday/- U