Patna High Court
Kanchan Kumari vs The State Of Bihar And Ors on 31 July, 2019
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2019 PAT 2153
Author: Madhuresh Prasad
Bench: Madhuresh Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No 12851 of 2015
======================================================
Kanchan Kumari, wife of Sri Lalan Prasad Yadav, resident of Village and P.O.
Bari Ballia, Police Station -Ballia, District Begusarai
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar
2. The Commissioner, Munger.
3. The Deputy Director, Welfare Department Ballia (Begusarai).
4. The Collector, Ballia (Begusarai).
5. The District Programme officer, Ballia (Begusarai)
6. The Block Development Project Officer, Ballia (Begusarai)
7. The Child Development Project Officer, Ballia (Begusarai)
8. The Panchayat Secretary, Bari Ballia, Begusarai
9. The Mukhiya , Bari Ballia, Begusarai
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr Bindhyachal Singh, Ms Smriti Singh, Advs
For the Respondent/s : Mr Wasi Ahmad Khan, AC to SC XXV
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 31-07-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent-State.
2 Writ petition has been filed in the year, 2015 seeking a direction upon the respondent-authorities to appoint the petitioner as Angan Bari Sevika for Centre No 159 at Bari Ballia Panchayat. Petitioner's counsel submits that the petitioner was declared the first empanelled candidate in the merit list which was Patna High Court CWJC No.12851 of 2015 dt.31-07-2019 2/5 published in December, 2014 (Annexure 2). On account of a dispute whether the petitioner, by virtue of being a Backward candidate, would be appointed or not, the Aam Sabha deferred the matter for survey afresh as many were of the opinion that the majority population was of Extreme Backward Class (for brevity, EBC).
3 Petitioner's counsel submits that the issue stood determined in May 2015, which is evident from the proceedings of the Block Panchayat Samiti dated 19.05.2015. Conclusion was that Backward Caste was the majority in the area for which the selection was conducted. Petitioner's counsel submits that the issue having been resolved, and since, admittedly, she was the first empanelled candidate and also belonged to Backward Class, petitioner should have been selected as Angan Bari Sevika for the Centre in question. However, the same has not been done.
4 Child Development Project Officer has come out with an Advertisement for selection of Angan Bari Sevika for various centres including Centre No 159 for which the petitioner was an applicant. Advertisement has recently been issued and is assailed by way of Interlocutory Application No 1 of 2019.
5 Heard the parties.
Patna High Court CWJC No.12851 of 2015 dt.31-07-2019 3/5 6 Petitioner, as per averments made in the writ petition, was declared as the first empanelled candidate which is evident from Annexure 2. Records also reveal that there was a seriously contested dispute regarding the majority caste for the Centre in question. Whether the Backward Class Community or EBC constituted the majority. The Aam Sabha decided to proceed for survey afresh. Survey having been concluded, the Panchayat Samiti, in its meeting on 19.05.2015 took a decision with respect to the Centre in question which is at Serial No 15 of the said Minutes and which is Annexure 6 to the writ petition.
7 In May, 2015 itself, the Block Panchayat Samiti had taken a decision which reads as follows:
"vk¡xuckM+h 15 vfouk"k dqekj] iapk;r lfefr lnL; }kjk lnu dks crk;k x;k fd cM+h cfy;k vk¡xuckM+h dsUnz la0&159 esa vk¡xuckM+h lsfodk ds p;u gsrq vfr fiNM+k oxZ cgqyrk ds vk/kkj ij p;u fd;k tk jgk FkkA vkelHkk }kjk fu.kZ; fy;k x;k fd losZ iath xyr gSA iqu% losZ ds ckn gh p;u fd;k tk;A cxy ds vk¡xuckM+h lsfodk ds }kjk ckMZ lnL;] iap lnL;] iapk;r lfefr lnL;] iSDl v/;{k] eqf[k;kth mi izeq[k] ftyk ifj'kn lnL; dh ns[kjs[k esa losZ fd;k x;k ftlesa fiNM+k oxZ dh cgqyrk gSA bu izfrfuf/k;ksa }kjk iath ij gLrk{kj ekStwn gksus ds ckotwn cky fodkl ifj;kstuk inkf/kdkjh] cfy;k }kjk c;u izfØ;k ugha fd;k tk jgk gSA ftldk leFkZu eqf[k;k] Jherh lq/kk nsoh ,oa iapk;r lfefr lnL;] vler [kkrwu }kjk Hkh fd;k x;kA ftls loZlEefr ls lnu }kjk fu.kZ; fy;k x;k fd vk¡xuCkkM+h dsUnz la0&159 esa fiNM+k oxZ cgqyrk ds vH;FkhZ dk p;u gsrq cky fodkl ifj;kstuk inkf/kdkjh] cfy;k dks funsf"kr fd;k tk;A"
Patna High Court CWJC No.12851 of 2015 dt.31-07-2019 4/5 8 Clear mandate of the Block Panchayat Samiti as far back as on 19.05.2015 was to proceed afresh. The Authorities, pursuant thereto, have issued an Advertisement for selection afresh.
9 Having regard to the proceedings dated 19.05.2015 as well as the fact that since the petitioner had been declared as the first empanelled candidate in 2014, public interest would be served for proceeding for selection afresh since that process had never been completed and in order to ensure that all are allowed opportunity so that the best candidate may emerge.
10 This Court does not consider it appropriate to interfere with the fresh Advertisement which has been assailed by way of Interlocutory Application No 1 of 2019.
11 Petitioner's counsel submits that since the matter was pending and could not be taken up, she has missed the opportunity of applying in response to the fresh selection process initiated by the Advertisement issued in May, 2019. Authorities have not proceeded further in the matter of selection and no third party rights have occurred and, therefore, she may be permitted to submit her application for consideration.
12 This Court would observe that if no third party right has occurred till date, then the petitioner's application may be Patna High Court CWJC No.12851 of 2015 dt.31-07-2019 5/5 entertained by the Authorities, as she has been pursuing her remedy in the instant proceedings.
13 Writ petition is dismissed.
(Madhuresh Prasad, J) M.E.H./-
AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 06.08.2019 Transmission Date NA