Brajendra Prasad Rai vs The State Of Bihar And Ors
2023 Latest Caselaw 848 Patna

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                   Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10906 of 2015
     ======================================================

Brajendra Prasad Rai S/o Late Suraj Rai, Resident of village- Moharihan, Post- Khocharihan, P.S.- Dhansoi, District- Buxar.

... ... Petitioner/s Versus

1. The State Of Bihar and Ors null null

2. The District Education Officer, Buxar.

3. The Director, Primary Eduacation, Bihar at Patna.

4. Director, Research and Training, Department of Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

5. Principal, District Education nad Training Institution, Dumraon, Buxar.

6. Principal, DIET, Dumraon, District, Buxar.

7. Block Education Extension Office, Rajpur District, Buxar.

8. Krishna Bihari Singh S/o Ram Kripal Singh R/o village- Sujaitpur, P.S.-

Dhansoi, District- Buxar.

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Binod Kumar Singh, Adv.

Mr. Satyendra Pd. Singh, Adv.

For the Respondent/s : Mr. Uday Shankar Sharan Singh- Gp1 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA

ORAL JUDGMENT

Date : 20-02-2023

1. The petitioner by way of this writ petition

prays to direct the respondent authorities to appoint him as

Coordinator on the ground that he possesses higher qualification

in comparison to respondent no. 8.

2. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner

was denied selection solely on the ground that he did not seek

permission of the Department to acquire M.A. qualification, Patna High Court CWJC No.10906 of 2015 dt.20-02-2023

whereas it is his case that he had applied for granting him

permission to appear in the examination to the Block Education

Extension Officer at the relevant time.

3. I have considered the submission. The reason

having been put forward by the petitioner is not reflected from

the selection of the respondent no. 8 on the post of Coordinator.

On the other hand, the minutes of the Selection Committee

placed on record as Agenda No. 3 reflects that the petitioner's

case was considered along with that of the other candidate on

the basis of their qualification of B.A. and B.Ed. and it was

found that the other candidate respondent no. 8 was having

higher percentage in B.Ed. and on the basis he was selected.

4. Element of selection is in exclusive domain of

the selecting body. This Court would not interfere in such

selection process provided it gives a chance of consideration to

all who had applied. Having noticed that the petitioner's case

was also considered by the selecting body and a decision was

taken in favour of respondent no. 8, this Court would not

intervene even if this Court has a view that someone else should

have been selected in the place of respondent no. 8. It is only a

decision making process which is a subject matter of judicial

review and not the decision itself.

Patna High Court CWJC No.10906 of 2015 dt.20-02-2023

5. The writ petition is mis-concieved and is

accordingly dismissed.

(Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J) Sachin/-

AFR/NAFR CAV DATE Uploading Date Transmission Date