Rani Kumari v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CIVIL REVIEW No.546 of 2018 In Letters Patent Appeal No.1201 of 2015 ====================================================== Rani Kumari wife of Sri Ram Babu Singh resident of Village Tilak Tazpur, PS and Block- Runni Saidpur, District- Sitamarhi posted as Block Teacher in Upgraded Middle School, Parari, PO- Thahar, PS and Block- Aurai, District Muzaffarpur.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State Of Bihar and Ors Bihar 2.

The Director, Primary Education Department Government of Bihar, Patna. 3.

The District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur District- Muzaffarpur. 4.

The District Education Officer, Muzaffarpur District Muzaffarpur. 5.

The Member, District Teacher Employment Appellate Authority Muzaffarpur.

6.

The District Programme Officer, Establishment Muzaffarpur. 7.

The Block Education Extension Officer, Aurai District Muzaffarpur. 8.

Md. Manzar Alam son of Md. Isha resident of Village and PO- Gaus Nagar, PS- Runni Saidpur, District Sitamarhi, address for correspondence at Sahwazpur, PO- Bhikhanpura, PS- Ahiyapur, District Muzaffarpur. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Vaidehi Raman Pd. Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Ashutosh Ranjan Pandey, A.A.G. 15 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 10-04-2019 I.A. No. 1 of 2019 Heard learned counsel for the appellant.

Patna High Court C. REV. No.546 of 2018(4) dt.10-04-2019 2/3 The limitation petition discloses sufficient cause to condone the delay.

We, accordingly, allow the limitation petition and entertain the appeal.

C.Rev. No. 546 of 2018 Having heard learned counsel for the appellant, we find from the judgement of the learned Single Judge that the appellant's merit as calculated under the Physically Handicapped Category quota was 68.11, whereas, the merit of the 8th Respondent was 73. It is, thus, evident that the respondent was higher in merit than the appellant. Learned counsel contends that there is an error apparent on the face of the record inasmuch as the issue relating to the appellant belonging to the female category candidate has not been dealt with appropriately and the learned Single Judge has committed an error in not accepting the claim of appellant on that ground. We have considered the submissions raised and since the appellant and the respondent belong to the Physically Handicapped Category, the gender difference will not make any difference with regard to the claim of reservation under the Physically Handicapped Category. We, therefore, do not find any merit in the present application.

Patna High Court C. REV. No.546 of 2018(4) dt.10-04-2019 3/3 The same is, accordingly, dismissed.

(Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, CJ) ( Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) K.C.Jha/Uma/- U