Patna High Court - Orders
Kumari Sachchi vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 25 April, 2014
Author: Ajay Kumar Tripathi
Bench: Ajay Kumar Tripathi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.23671 of 2012
======================================================
1. Kumari Sachchi Wife Of Mundeshwar Thakur Resident Of Village-
Barahsher, P.S.- Bihra, Distt.- Saharsa
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar Through The Secretary, Department Of Social
Welfare Government Of Bihar, Patna
2. The Divisional Commissioner, Kishi Division, Saharsa
3. The District Magistrate, Saharsa
4. The District Programme Officer Saharsa
5. The Child Development Project Officer, Satta Katiaya, District- Saharsa
6. The Mukhiya Gram Panchayat Barahsher, P.S.- Bihra, District- Saharsa
7. Rupam Kumari Wife Of Shri Shankar Kumar Khan Resident Of Village-
Barahsher, P.S.- Bihra, District- Saharsa
.... .... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Baxi S. R. P. Sinha, Sr. Advocate .
Mr. Kumar Goutam
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Prabhat Kumar, A.C. to G.A. 2
For Respondent no. 7 :- Mr. Dharmendra Kumar Paswan.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR
TRIPATHI
ORAL ORDER
3 25-04-2014The only reason why the previous order of the Divisional Commissioner was interfered with was that the petitioner was not given an opportunity of hearing. The same was given and now a fresh order contained in annexure-7 dated 12.11.2012 has come to be passed in Revision Case No. 128 of 2012 which is being assailed in this writ application by the petitioner.
Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that a reading of the concluding part of the order passed Patna High Court CWJC No.23671 of 2012 (3) dt.25-04-2014 2 by the Divisional Commissioner would show that his conclusion has been reached on conjectures and surmises which can never form basis for actual proof. Therefore, the reasoning given is required to be interfered with.
The Court has gone through the entire order of the Divisional Commissioner. There are one to many reasons as to why the petitioner has not been selected or appointed which has been discussed in detail in the main body of the order. What has been concluded is not conjecture but an honest inference which could be drawn after looking into the record and what transpired and the manner in which such selection was carried out.
If something is done without following the procedure or if something is done by the authority not authorized to do so, which is not disputed in the present case, that the appointment letter had been issued to the petitioner by the Child Development Project Officer, not authorized, there is no signature of the Mukhia and the Panchayat Secretary on the appointment letter and that there is no reflection of the educational qualification of the petitioner in the so called entry after the Gram Sabha was held. Coupled with the fact that the petitioner is supposed to have acquired two types of degrees, one of Intermediate and another of Madhyama simultaneously, this is a clear pointer towards fraud Patna High Court CWJC No.23671 of 2012 (3) dt.25-04-2014 3 which has been committed by the petitioner which also makes her culpable. However, this is another issue but so far as the impugned order is concerned, there is no occasion to interfere with the same as it will amount to putting a seal of approval to an illegal act through and through.
This writ application is dismissed.
(Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J) Amin/-