High Court Patna High Court - Orders

Lila Devi vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 26 August, 2011

Patna High Court – Orders
Lila Devi vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 26 August, 2011
                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                                    CWJC No.647 of 2010
              1. Lila Devi W/O Samarendra Singh R/O Vill.- Kolodihari,
              P.S. Chauri, Distt.- Bhojpur (Ara)
                                       Versus
              1. The State Of Bihar
              2. The District Magistrate, Bhojpur
              3. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Bhojpur
              4. The Block Development Officer-Cum Nodal Officer
              Kolodihari, Distt.- Bhojpur
              5. Surpanch Cum Chairman Selection Committee Gram
              Panchayat Koldehari, P.S. Chauri Distt.- Bhojpur
              6. Dazy Kumari D/O Dina Nath Prasad At Present Sachiv
              Gram Kechari Kolodihari P.S. Chauri, Distt.- Bhojpur And
              R/O Vill.- Kolodehari, P.S. Chauri, Distt.- Bhojpur
                                           -----------

3. 26.08.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner

and the State.

The petitioner was an applicant for the

post of Secretary, Gram Kutchery and is aggrieved by

the selection of respondent no. 6 in preference to

her.

The respondent no. 4 has filed a counter

affidavit. It states that respondent no. 6 held the

qualification of ‘matriculation’ and the petitioner

‘Madhyama’.

The selection process was initiated on

24.8.2007. The eligibility statutorily fixed under

Rule 5 of the Bihar Gram Kutchery (Appointment,

Service Conditions and Duties) Rules, 2007 was

matriculation only. Therefore a person holding

Madhyama qualification was not eligible to apply.

That this Court may have held that Madhyama was
2

equivalent to matriculate relying upon a circular of

1999 cannot tantamount to a direction by the Court

to act contrary to the statutory provisions. No Court

of law can issue a mandamus contrary to the

statute. Rule 5 then came to be amended on

31.1.2008 with prospective effect by which

Madhyama was added as an eligible qualification for

the post. Therefore a person holding Madhyama

qualification could apply to be considered only after

31.1.2008 and not before that.

The Court therefore finds no error calling

for interference.

The application is dismissed.

P. Kumar                                           ( Navin Sinha, J.)