Parwati Kumari v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9726 of 2025 ====================================================== Parwati Kumari Wife of Late Ramanand Manjhi, Resident of Village-Rahul Nagar Mankoshi, Post Office and Panchayat-Moratal, Ward No. 7, (Panchayat-Mankoshi), Police Station and Block Office-Bodh Gaya, DistrictGaya. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through the Director, Department of Social Welfare, Government of Bihar, Patna.

2.

The District Collector/District Magistrate, Gaya. 3.

The Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Gaya.

4.

The Block Development Officer, Bodh Gaya, District-Gaya. 5.

The Block Welfare Officer, Bodh Gaya, District-Gaya. 6.

Sri Kartike Kumar, son of Yugal Manjhi, Resident of Village and PanchayatMoratel, Police Station and Block Office-Bodh Gaya, District-Gaya. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Virendra Prasad, Adv.

For the Respondent/s :

Dr. Shobha Choubey, GP-19 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 26-06-2025 Heard the parties.

2. The petitioner is aggrieved with the selection and appointment of the respondent no. 6 as Vikas Mitra, notwithstanding the fact that the petitioner had secured first position in the merit list with 88.13% marks, whereas, the private respondent no. 6 had secured second position with 83.06% marks, she has been denied her claim of appointment.

3. Learned Advocate for the petitioner referring to the merit list has contended that irrespective of the fact the petitioner secured higher marks than the private respondent no. 6, she has been denied the selection to the post of Vikas Mitra and, as such, patent illegality and discrimination has been

Patna High Court CWJC No.9726 of 2025(2) dt.26-06-2025 2/2 caused. The action of the selection committee is said to be in complete violation of Article 14 of the Constitution is the contention of the learned Advocate.

4. Learned Advocate for the State referring to the Letter No. 95 dated 27.07.2024 has apprised this Court that the Sub Divisional Officer happens to be Chairman of Selection Committee and thus, he being competent authority can look into the matter and resolve the dispute, if any irregularity would be found.

5. Having considered the submissions set forth by learned Advocate for the respective parties, this Court deems it apt and proper to dispose off the writ petition with a direction to the Sub Divisional Officer, Sadar Gaya to look into the grievance of the petitioner, after calling the record of selection process with respect to the petitioner vis-a-vis respondent no. 6 and pass a reasoned and speaking order, preferably within a period of twelve weeks, from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

6. Suffice it to observe that the petitioner shall also be at liberty to place all the material facts along with the order of this Court to support her claim.

(Harish Kumar, J) shivank/- U