Pinki Kumari And ORS v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6158 of 2016 ======================================================

1. Pinki Kumari, daughter of Baleshwar Pd. Singh, resident of Jyoti Vihar Colony, Bahadurpur Sabour Road, P.S. Zero Mile, District- Bhagalpur.

2. Tara Kumari, daughter of Late Raj Kumar Singh, resident of Village Kohra (Sarmashpur), P.O. Mirjanhat, P.S. Lodipur, District- Bhagalpur.

3. Kumari Binita Rani, daughter of Sri Mahesh Mandal, resident of Village and P.O. Rampur, P.S. Kahalgaon, District- Bhagalpur.

4. Kumari Abhilasha Bharti, daughter of Sri Mahendra Prasad Singh, resident of Village and P.O. Rampur, P.S. Kahalgaon, DistrictBhagalpur.

5. Anita Kumari, daughter of Sri Arjun Prasad, resident of Mohalla Ishakchak (Bishahari Ashthan), P.O. and P.S. Ishakchak, DistrictBhagalpur.

6. Sangeeta Kumari, daughter of Sri Tirthanand Mishra, resident of Village Mishar Gangati, P.O. and P.S. Thakur Gangati, District- Godda (Jharkhand).

7. Urmila Devi, daughter of Late Nityanand Singh, resident of Gandhi Gram (Near Camp Jail) Tilkamanjhi, P.S. Tilkamanjhi, Bhagalpur.

8. Rupa Sansar, daughter of Dhruvpali Singh, resident of Village and P.O. Kapsauna, P.S. Shahkund, District- Bhagalpur.

9. Sunita Kumari, daughter of Rasho Mandal, resident of Village and P.O. Abjuganj, P.S. Sultanganj, District- Bhagalpur.

10. Rubi Kumari, daughter of Ramawtar Prasad Singh, resident of Village Paharpur, P.S. Madini Chowki, District- Lakhisarai.

11. Rina Kumari, daughter of Rama Nanad Prasad Singh, resident of Village Abgil Rampur, P.O. Paharpur, P.S. Medini Chowki, DistrictLakhisarai.

12. Shweta Sinha, daughter of Vishnudeo Prasad Sinha, resident of Khankita, P.O. and P.S. Sabour, District- Bhagalpur.

13. Sushma Devi, wife of Late Banwari Prasad Singh, resident of Village Bath, P.O. and P.S. Bath, District- Bhagalpur.

14. Kanta Kumari, daughter of Sri Anirudha Mandal, resident of Village and P.O. Saino, P.S. Jagdishpur, District- Bhagalpur.

15. Nutan Das, daughter of Bideshi Das, resident of Mohalla Hassanganj Raod Near Sai Mandir, P.O. Mirjanhat, P.S. Mojahidpur, District Bhagalpur.

16. Archana Bharti, daughter of Ajit Kumar Sharma, resident of C/o Suresh Pd. Singh Village- Khankitta, P.S. Sabour, District- Bhagalpur. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. The Principal Secretary Health, Department of Health and Family Welfare, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

3. Director in Chief, Health Services, Bihar, Patna

4. Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer-cum-Member Secretary, Zila Swastha Sammittee, Bhagalpur.

5. The Secretary, Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

6. Bihar Staff Selection Commission, P.O. Vetenary College, Patna-14

Patna High Court CWJC No.6158 of 2016 (4) dt.26-06-2018 through its Secretary.

7. The Secretary, Bihar Staff Selection Commission, Govt. of Bihar, P.O. Vetenary College, Patna-14.

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

For the Petitioner/s : Dr. Manoj Kumar, Adv.

For the Respondent/s : Mr. Indradeo Prasad, SC-27 For the Commission : Mr. Satyam Shivam Sundaram, Adv.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL ORDER 26-06-2018 Heard Dr. Manoj Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Indradeo Prasad, learned Standing Counsel No.27 for the State and Mr. Satyam Shivam Sundaram, learned counsel appearing for the Bihar Staff Selection Commission (hereinafter referred to as the 'Commission').

The grievance raised by the petitioners against denial of their appointment to the post of A.N.M. is answered in the counter affidavit filed by the 'Commission' in which it is stated that all these petitioners secured marks below the cut off marks fixed in the respective category, the details of which are mentioned in paragraph 5 and onwards. In other words, it is because these petitioners failed to obtain marks above the last selected candidate in respective category that they were not selected. The situation explained in the counter affidavit has not been controverted.

In the circumstances no cause for indulgence is made out. The writ petition is disposed of.

(Jyoti Saran, J) SKPathak/- U