Arti Kumari v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18357 of 2011 ====================================================== ARTI KUMARI W/o Manoj Kumar, resident of Village - Arraha, P.S. -Saur Bazar, District - Saharsa.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. THE STATE OF BIHAR

2. The Divisional Commissioner, Koshi Division, Saharsa.

3. The Collector, Saharsa

4. The Sub-divisional Officer, Saharsa

5. The District Programme Officer, Saharsa

6. The Block Development Officer, Saur Bazar, District - Saharsa

7. The Child Development Project Officer, Saur Bazar, Saharsa

8. Sandhya Kumari, W/o Nunu Lal Yadav, resident of Village - Arraha, P.O.- Suhath, P.S. Saur Bazar, Saharsa ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Bhanu Pratap Singh, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Asti Kumar Jha, AC to GP 2 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI ORAL ORDER 13-12-2024 In the instant writ petition, petitioner has prayed for the following relief:

"That, this is an application for issuance of an appropriate writ for setting arise the order dated 15.9.2011 passed by the respondent Divisional Commissioner, Koshi Division, Saharsa in Appeal No. 32/2011 as contained in Annexure-9 by which he has set-aside the order dated 23.5.2011 passed by the Collector, Saharsa and where under in view of the facts and circumstances of the case the petitioner was selected as Anganbari Sevika for Arraha West Anganbari Centre within Suhath Gram Panchayat, Saur Bazar Block District- Saharsa and the earlier selection of respondent no. 8, for the said centre was cancelled."

Patna High Court CWJC No.18357 of 2011(4) dt.13-12-2024 2/2

2. The petitioner is raising a disputed issue to the extent that the concerned respondent has prepared two merit lists. Annexure - 3 is the first merit list which has not been operated, on the other hand, they have operated the second list. Be that as it may, the petitioner has secured 55 % marks whereas 8th respondent - has secured 73.28 % marks.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that 8th respondent has secured lesser percentage of marks than the petitioner's percentage of marks. To that effect, he has failed to produce any material information like marksheet of the relevant qualification. In the absence of such material, petitioner has not made out a case. Accordingly, present writ petition stands dismissed.

(P. B. Bajanthri, J) GAURAV S./- U