Bindu Kumari vs The State Of Bihar And Ors
2023 Latest Caselaw 5020 Patna

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                       Letters Patent Appeal No.1414 of 2018
                                          In
                    Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16478 of 2013
     ======================================================

Bindu Kumari Daughter of Sri Shiv Nandan Sah, wief of Birendra Kumar Sah, Resident of Mohalla- Aryan Shopping, Gerabadi Road, Mirchaibari, District- Katihar

... ... Appellant/s Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Government of Bihar.

2. The Personal Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Government of Bihar,Patna

3. The Divisional commissioner, Purnea Division, Purnea

4. The Director , Integrated Child Development Services Directorate, Bihar, Patna.

5. The Seletion Committee, Lady Supervisor Selection Committee, katihar through its Chairman, The Coll

6. The Collector, Katihar.

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

For the Appellant/s : Mr. Rajesh Mohan, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Gyan Prakash Ojha, GA-7 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)

Date : 03-10-2023

The appeal is filed against an order in a review,

which rejected the same finding the scope of review to be

very limited and the invocation of such review jurisdiction

possible only on the ground of an error apparent/evident

from the face of the record.

Patna High Court L.P.A No.1414 of 2018 dt.03-10-2023

2. We find absolutely no reason to interfere with

the said order in appeal.

3. However, the learned counsel also pointed

out the order passed in the writ petition, which though not

challenged; we looked at for completeness. On 02.04.2018,

a writ petition was filed by the petitioner against the

rejection of her candidature to the post to Lady Supervisor,

which was dismissed. The rejection of her candidature was

on account of her not having produced the Non-Creamy

Layer Certificate, which she was obliged to produce along

with application.

4.The learned Single Judge found that though it

was not produced along with application, she was called for

counselling on 14.05.2012, on which date also she had not

produced it. The petitioner's reliance on the guidelines,

which speak of an opportunity to submit the required

certificate, having not been granted to her was also rejected

on the ground that the advertisement clearly spelt out the

requirement to produce the certificates along with

application.

5. The advertisement was made as per Patna High Court L.P.A No.1414 of 2018 dt.03-10-2023

Annexure-1, produced in the writ petition, for appointment

on contractual basis to the post of Lady Supervisor (Mahila

Parveyashika) in Katihar district. Even according to the

petitioner, the advertisement required that the application

should contain the self-attested photograph, the Extremely

Backward Class certificate along with the certificate of not

coming under creamy layer. Admittedly, the petitioner did

not produce the certificate along with the application. The

contention of the petitioner that as per the guidelines she

should have been given an opportunity, is misplaced insofar

as the petitioner having not produced the certificate anytime

thereafter, not even on the date of counselling. Her

candidature was not rejected at its inception and despite her

failure to produce the certificate, she was called for the

counselling. This was sufficient compliance of the

guidelines.

6. In the writ petition also the petitioner had a

contention that if her application was defective, she should

have been informed. The said contention also is misplaced,

since, the advertisement clearly required the applicants to

produce the certificates and the self-attested photograph Patna High Court L.P.A No.1414 of 2018 dt.03-10-2023

along with the application itself. If any of the enclosures

required are not produced, the application could be rejected

in limine, which was not done.

7. In the present case, the application was not

rejected and the petitioner was called for counselling, on

which date also she did not produce the certificate.

8. It is the contention of the petitioner in the

writ petition itself that she produced the certificate before

the respondent. However, no such certificate was produced

along with the writ petition. Later by a reply to the counter

affidavit, a certificate dated 14.05.2012, was produced as

Annexure-8. Obviously, the certificate dated 14.05.2012,

could not have been produced along with the application,

since, before the last date for submitting the application the

certificate was not even issued.

9. In this context we also have to notice that the

certificate was issued only on 14.05.2012, on which date the

counselling was also carried out. Hence, the petitioner's

contention that the certificate was produced at the time of

counselling also cannot be believed.

10. We find absolutely no reason to entertain the Patna High Court L.P.A No.1414 of 2018 dt.03-10-2023

appeal both against the order of review or on merits against

the original judgment of the learned Single Judge.

11. The appeal stands dismissed leaving the

parties to suffer their respective costs.

(K. Vinod Chandran, CJ)

( Rajiv Roy, J) aditya/-

AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE
Uploading Date          06.10.2023.
Transmission Date