Sarita Kumari v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10679 of 2021 ====================================================== Sarita Kumari, Daughter of Sri Abhimanyu Yadav, Resident of Village - Mahkar, Post Office- Siur, Police Station- Roh, District - Nawada, Pin - 805107 (Bihar).
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Home Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2.
The Chief Secretary, Home Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3.
The Additional Chief Secretary, Home Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
4.
The Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna. 5.
The Chairman, Central Selection Board (Constable Requirement), Bihar, Patna.
6.
The Special Work Officer, Central Selection Board (Constable Requirement), Bihar, Patna.
... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Ravi Raj, Advocate For the Respondent/s :
Mr. Dhurendra Kumar, AC to GP- 5 For the CSBC :
Mr. Sanjay Pandey, Advocate Mr. Binod Kumar Mishra, Advocate Mr. Vivek Anand Amritesh, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 18-09-2023 1.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent-Board.
2.
The petitioner has participated in the process of selection of 'Constable', pursuant to Advertisement No. 02/2019. It is the petitioner's self- assessed claim that she had secured 86 marks in the process. The claim is specified in
Patna High Court CWJC No.10679 of 2021 dt.18-09-2023 2/3 paragraph No. 7 of the writ petition, allocating marks, as per her own assessment with respect to the various events, in which she participated on the date of Physical Evaluation Test (PET). It is an admitted position that she belongs to Backward Class Category, which she has wrongly mentioned as Extremely Backward Class (EBC) in the online application form. 3.
Learned counsel for the respondent-Board submits that the serf-serving assessment based on which the petitioner claims 86 marks cannot enure to the petitioner's benefit. No such declaration of marks obtained by the petitioner has been placed on record.
4.
He, however, submits that in view of the fact that wrong category has been mentioned, the petitioner's case is covered by Clause 9 and 10 of the Advertisement, which reads as follows:- "(ix) अभ्यरर्थी दसवव/समकक्ष ककी बबोर्ड परकीक्षक्षा कक मूल प्रमक्षाण-पत्र कक आधक्षार पर अपनकी जन्म ततितर कक्षा सहकी-सहकी उल्लकख करेंगक। आवकदन-पत्र मरें अभ्यरर्थी अपनक्षा नक्षाम, तपतिक्षा/पतति कक्षा नक्षाम, पतिक्षा आतद सभकी समूचनक्षाए तबल्ककल सहकी-सहकी भरेंगक। प्रमक्षाण - पत्रत्रों सक तमलक्षान कक समय यतद इनमरें कबोई तभन्नतिक्षा पक्षायकी जक्षातिकी ह तिबो अभ्यरर्थी ककी उम्मकीदवक्षारकी रद्द कर जक्षायकगकी।
Patna High Court CWJC No.10679 of 2021 dt.18-09-2023 3/3 (x) आवकदन - पत्र मरें यतद आवकदक गलति आरक्षण कबोतटि प्रतवष्ट करतिक हैं तिबो उनककी उम्मकीदवक्षारकी रद्द कर दकी जक्षायकगकी । अतितः आवकदक पमूणर्डतितः आश्वस्ति हबो लरें तक वक तकस वगर्ड अरवक्षा कबोतटि सक संबसंध रखतिक हैं।" 5.
The petitioner was disqualified in terms of the advertisement, since she has mentioned a wrong reservation category.
6.
On consideration of rival submissions, this Court finds that there is no declaration of 86 marks in favour of the petitioner by the respondent-Board. The petitioner cannot be granted any relief, let alone appointment based on her self serving assessment of marks. It is also an admitted position that she had mentioned wrong category, i.e., EBC instead of BC. As per the terms of advertisement, petitioner's candidature was thus liable to be cancelled.
7.
Writ petition is thus devoid of merit, and the same is dismissed.
(Madhuresh Prasad, J) Raj Kishore/- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE N/A Uploading Date 05-10-2023 Transmission Date N/A