Smt. Anita KumariversusThe State Of Bihar and Ors

          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
                                            4/6




         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
                                            5/6




         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
                                                         6/6




                      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