[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Patna High Court
Smt. Anita Kumari vs The State Of Bihar And Ors on 16 February, 2026
Author: Partha Sarthy
Bench: Partha Sarthy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case no.8239 of 2017
======================================================
Smt. Anita Kumari W/o Ram Pravesh Kumar, Resident of Village- Rajapakar,
P.O.P.S.- Rajapakar, District- Vaishali.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. The Commissioner, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur.
3. The Collector, Vaishali at Hajipur.
4. The Additional Collector, Vaishali at Hajipur.
5. The Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sub Division Mahua, P.S.- Mahua, District-
Vaishali.
6. The Block Development Officer, Block Rajapakar, District- Vaishali.
7. The Nodal Officer, G.P.S. The Block Panchayat Raj Officer Block
Rajapakar, District- Vaishali.
8. Smt. Gayatri Kumari, W/o Dharmendra Sharma, Resident of Village
P.O.P.S.- Rajapakar, District- Vaishali.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Prem Ranjan Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Manish Kumar, A.C. to AAG6
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 16-02-2026
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned counsel for the respondents.
2. The petitioner in the instant writ application has
prayed for quashing the order dated 21.3.2017 passed by the
Patna High Court CWJC no.8239 of 2017 dt.16-02-2026
2/6
Collector, Vaishali at Hajipur whereby the
application/appointment of the petitioner on the post of Gram
Kachhari Secretary of Gram Panchayat Raj Rajapakar (Uttari) in
District Vaishali was cancelled and a further order for recovery
of the honorarium paid to the petitioner was made.
3. The relevant facts in brief are that the
respondents having come out with the notice on the board in the
office of the Gram Panchayat Rajapakar for appointment on the
post of Gram Kachhari Secretary on contract basis, the
petitioner and others being eligible, filed their applications. The
successful applicants were called for counseling. In the merit list
prepared for appointment on the post of Gram Kachhari
Secretary, while the name of the respondent no.8 figured at
serial no.1, the name of the petitioner figured at serial no.2.
4. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent
no. 8 not having appeared in counseling, the petitioner came to
be appointed on the said post.
5. The respondent no. 8 filed an application before
the Sub-divisional Officer challenging the appointment of the
petitioner as Gram Kachhari Secretary, however, the same was
rejected by order dated 29.8.2009 (Annexure-9).
6. The appeal preferred by respondent no. 8 before
Patna High Court CWJC no.8239 of 2017 dt.16-02-2026
3/6
the Collector, Vaishali at Hajipur came to be allowed by order
dated 21.3.2017, impugned herein.
7. It is submitted by learned counsel for the
petitioner that the appointment of the petitioner having been
made on 1.10.2007, as per the applicable Rules, the affected
party had to challenge the appointment within a period of 30
days. The respondent no. 8 came to challenge the same by filing
a case more than 1 year 10 months later on 12.8.2009 which was
rightly rejected by the Sub-divisional Officer by his order dated
29.8.2009.
8
. Learned counsel further submits that thereafter
the respondent no. 8 moved before the Collector, Vaishali at
Hajipur against the order dated 29.8.2009 of the Sub-Divisional
Officer, Mahua rejecting her application. The Collector allowed
the appeal filed by the respondent no. 8 on erroneous grounds. It
is submitted that firstly the Collector did not consider the
limitation prescribed for a person ie the respondent no. 8 herein,
in moving against the selection. Further the respondent no. 8
failed to prove before the authority concerned that she had
appeared on the date of counseling. Referring to the order
impugned, it is submitted that original records were not
available with the authority concerned and the order etc. is
Patna High Court CWJC no.8239 of 2017 dt.16-02-2026
based on the copies of the records provided by respondent no. 8.
9. The application is opposed by learned counsel
for the respondents.
10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties
and having perused the contents of the petition, it transpires that
on an application for appointment on the post of Gram Kachhari
Secretary, a merit list was prepared. There is no disputing the
fact that the respondent no. 8 having higher marks than the
petitioner was placed at serial no. 1.
11. So far as the contention of the respondents that
the original documents not being available, the respondents
have passed the orders on the basis of the photocopy of the
documents provided by the respondent no. 8 is concerned, it is
to be taken note of the fact that pursuant to the matter having
reached before the Collector, Vaishali at Hajipur, a direction was
given for the matter to be inquired into. Pursuant to the said
direction, the Additional Collector, Vaishali inquired into the
matter in detail and by a report contained in letter no.87 dated
27.8.2011 (Annexure-B to the counter affidavit filed on behalf
of the respondents) came to the finding that there had been
interpolations in the counseling conducted for the reason that
the signature of the petitioner and one another were shown to
Patna High Court CWJC no.8239 of 2017 dt.16-02-2026
have been made on 25.6.2007 when the counseling itself took
place on 23.9.2007.
12. Not going into the details of the allegations and
counter allegations leveled from both the sides, taking into
consideration that it is not in dispute that the respondent no. 8
having higher marks than the petitioner was placed at serial no.
1 in the merit list prepared pursuant to the applications filed by
the applicants, the Collector allowed the appeal of respondent
no.8 by the order impugned dated 21.3.2017.
13. In view of the facts and circumstances of the
case, the Court finds no illegality in the order impugned and no
merit in the instant writ application.
14. The application is dismissed.
15. At this stage, it is submitted by the learned
counsel for the petitioner that it is not disputed by the
respondent authorities that the petitioner worked for a certain
period for which she was paid honorarium. It is thus submitted
that even if the Court has found no merit in the application filed
by the petitioner, at least an order directing for recovery of the
honorarium from the petitioner be set aside.
16. In view of the facts and circumstances of the
case, the part of the order impugned dated 21.3.2017 passed by
Patna High Court CWJC no.8239 of 2017 dt.16-02-2026
the Collector, Vaishali at Hajipur so far as it directs for recovery
of the honorarium from the petitioner is concerned, is set aside.
No recovery pursuant thereto shall be made from the petitioner.
(Partha Sarthy, J)
Bibhash
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 19.2.2026
Transmission Date NA
