Kusum Kumari vs State of Bihar and Others

Mridula Mishra, J.—Heard counsel for the petitioner and the State. This application has been filed for a direction to the respondent District Magistrate, Rohtas at Sasaram as well as other respondents to select/appoint the petitioner on the post of Anganbari Sewika at Centre No. 66 within Rohtas Block District Rohtas.

Petitioner''s claim is that in response to the advertisement for appointment of Anganbari Sewika at Centre No. 66 in the district of Rohtas, the petitioner and another filed their applications. The post of Anganbari Sewika was reserved for backward category and the petitioner belonged to backward category. Applications were scrutinized and a merit list was prepared in which the name of petitioner was at SI. No. 2 and respondent No. 8 was at SI. No. 8. In spite of this fact arbitrarily respondent No. 8 was selected ignoring the claim of the petitioner though the respondent No. 8 secured less marks than the petitioner. It has also been stated that the petitioner when came to know about the selection, filed a representation before the District Magistrate, Rohtas on 1.3.2007 for taking necessary action in the matter but till date there is no response and no action has been taken.

Petitioner''s case is that the representation is still pending before the District Magistrate. In view of this fact the respondent District Magistrate, Rohtas is directed to dispose of the representation dated 1.3.2007 filed by the petitioner. The petitioner as well as respondent No. 8 both must be given opportunity of hearing and only thereafter the respondent District Magistrate, Rohtas will decide the representation of the petitioner. In case it is found that the petitioner is entitled for being appointed on the post of Anganbari Sewika, a speaking order be passed preferably within four weeks from the date of receipt/communication of this order. Accordingly this application is disposed of.