Urmila Devi v. The State Of Bihar And ORS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.2074 of 2016 IN Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 7288 of 2011 ===========================================================
1. Urmila Devi Wife of Late Mahadeo Ram, Resident of Village- Purani Chabni English, UCO Bank, Gali Ward No. 18, P.O. and P.S.- Baraihiya, Distt.- Lakhisarai.
.... .... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
2. The Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Human Resources Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The District Teacher Appointing Appellate Authority, Patna.
4. The Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Paijuna, Block- Ghosbari, DistrictPatna.
5. The District Programme officer, Establishment, Patna.
6. The Block Development officer, Ghosbari, District- Patna. .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :
For the Appellant/s :
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Ashutosh Ranjan Pandey-AAG-15 Mr. Priyadarshi Matri Sharan, AC to AAG-15 =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPADHYAY ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) Date: 28-06-2017 Seeking exception to an order dated 5.10.2016 passed in C.W.J.C. No.7288 of 2011, this appeal has been filed under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent.
In the matter of selection of teacher to the post in question, challenging the order passed by the District Teachers Appointment Appellate Authority, Patna, the writ petition was field and the learned Writ Court after going through the record found that
Patna High Court LPA No.2074 of 2016 dt.28-06-2017 2/2 in the merit list prepared for the category in question, namely extremely backward category, one candidate Sony Kumari, a more meritorious candidate than the petitioner, was selected and the selection was undertaken after counseling and appointment letter issued. It is found that the selection has been made in accordance to the merit and no person less meritorious than the appellant has been selected.
In view of the above, we are of the considered view that the concurrent finding of the learned Appellate Authority and the learned Writ Court does not call for any interference. The appeal is therefore, dismissed.
(Rajendra Menon, CJ) (Anil Kumar Upadhyay, J) K.C.jha/- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE N/A Uploading Date 30.6.2017 Transmission Date N/A