Case Background
This case arose from recruitment to the post of Librarian in different high schools under Nagar Parishad, Dehri, Dalmianagar, in the district of Rohtas, Bihar.
An advertisement was published in a daily newspaper on 30.11.2008 for appointment to librarian posts in various high schools within the Nagar Parishad, Dehri, Dalmianagar.
There were five vacant posts of Librarian. As per roster clearance, three posts were allotted to the General Category, one to the Extremely Backward Classes, and one to the Scheduled Caste category.
The petitioner, respondent no. 7 and several others applied. After the selection process, counselling was fixed on 13.07.2015.
According to the petitioner, only three candidates, including herself, appeared in counselling: Sunil Kumar, Puja Kumari Soni and the petitioner. She claimed that respondent no. 7, Tej Narayan Pathak, did not participate in counselling.
On this basis, the Nagar Executive Officer-cum-Nagar Shikshak Niyojan Samiti, Nagar Parishad, Dehri, issued appointment letter to the petitioner as Librarian in High School, Dalmianagar, Dehri-on-Sone, Rohtas, vide Memo No. 411 dated 23.07.2015.
However, shortly thereafter, vide Memo No. 559 dated 27.08.2015, the petitioner was informed that her appointment had been cancelled. The reason given was “clerical mistakes”, specifically that the data relating to the employment process had not been published on the NIC website.
The petitioner challenged this cancellation before the District Appellate Authority, Rohtas, Sasaram, by filing Appeal No. 14 of 2015. On 28.01.2016, the District Appellate Authority allowed her appeal, set aside the cancellation, and directed the authorities to reinstate her on the post of Librarian. The authority held that a valid appointment could not be cancelled merely because data could not be uploaded on the NIC website.
Subsequently, respondent no. 7, who had also been a candidate for the same recruitment, filed Appeal No. 03 of 2016 before the same District Appellate Authority, challenging the appointment process of the Employment Unit. The petitioner herein was made Opposite Party No. 2 in that appeal.
On 15.02.2017, in Appeal No. 03 of 2016, the District Appellate Authority allowed respondent no. 7’s appeal and directed that he be appointed as Librarian on the vacant post. It was noted that two posts were lying vacant in two different schools, namely High School, Dalmianagar and Ramarani Jain Girls High School, Dehri.
The District Appellate Authority also recorded that respondent no. 7 had participated in counselling on 13.07.2015 and had obtained 58.91%. On this basis, it held that he ought to have been placed at serial no. 2 in the merit panel. The objection raised by the present petitioner, that respondent no. 7’s appeal was time barred, was rejected.
When the order dated 15.02.2017 of the District Appellate Authority was not implemented, respondent no. 7 moved the Patna High Court in CWJC No. 7900 of 2017. Vide order dated 12.04.2018, a co-ordinate Bench directed respondent no. 6 (Nagar Executive Officer-cum-Secretary, Nagar Shikshak Niyojan Samiti, Nagar Parishad, Dehri) to implement the District Appellate Authority’s order within a maximum period of 60 days.
In this backdrop, the Nagar Parishad cancelled the petitioner’s appointment and issued the impugned Memo No. 2058 dated 07.12.2018, removing her from the post of Librarian in order to appoint respondent no. 7.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The petitioner approached the Patna High Court in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 1852 of 2019. She challenged the memo dated 07.12.2018 by which her appointment as Librarian in High School, Dalmianagar, Dehri-on-Sone, Rohtas, had been cancelled.
The core of her argument was that the cancellation order was passed without giving her any show cause notice or opportunity of hearing. Therefore, she claimed, it violated the principles of natural justice.
She further argued that the orders passed by the District Appellate Authority in Appeal No. 03 of 2016 and by the High Court in CWJC No. 7900 of 2017 could not be read as authorising cancellation of her appointment. According to her, she continued to work in the school to the satisfaction of the authorities. She also submitted that two librarian posts were still vacant, and respondent no. 7 could be appointed against one of those without disturbing her appointment.
On the other side, counsel for respondent nos. 6 and 7 presented a different picture of the selection process.
They submitted that, out of the five advertised vacancies, three were for General Category, one for Extremely Backward Class Category, and one for Scheduled Castes. Against these five posts, four persons, including the petitioner and respondent no. 7, participated in counselling on the scheduled date.
However, appointment letters were issued only to three: Sunil Kumar, Puja Kumari Soni and the petitioner. Respondent no. 7 was left out even though he had secured higher marks than both the petitioner and Puja Kumari Soni.
The marks of the four candidates who actually participated in counselling on 13.07.2015 were recorded as follows:
| Sl. No. | Name | Father’s Name | Marks | %age | Category |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. | Sunil Kumar | Dwarika Singh | 122 | 62.35 | BC |
| 2. | Puja Kumari Soni | Vijay Kumar Singh | 77 | 58.07 | BC |
| 3. | Sunita Singh (petitioner) | Dhruv Nonia | 118 | 48.27 | BC |
| 4. | Tej Narayan Pathak (respondent no. 7) | Jag Nayan Pathak | 178 | 58.91 | General |
The respondents argued that the District Appellate Authority, after scrutinising the records, had already concluded that respondent no. 7 participated in counselling, secured 58.91%, and should have been placed at serial no. 2 in the merit panel. The petitioner, admittedly, had the lowest percentage among the four, at 48.27%, and should have been placed at serial no. 4.
Further, they pointed out that there was no vacancy earmarked for Backward Class Category among the five librarian posts. Therefore, the three Backward Class candidates, including the petitioner, were to be considered under the General Category. For General Category, three vacancies were available. Respondent no. 7, being a General Category candidate with higher marks than the petitioner and another candidate, had a better right to the third General Category post. According to them, the petitioner was wrongly appointed against this third General Category vacancy.
In reply, the petitioner maintained that respondent no. 7 had not appeared in counselling and that only three candidates, including herself, had participated. She claimed that this was why no appointment letter had been issued to respondent no. 7.
Justice Anil Kumar Sinha considered the rival submissions and examined the record, including the orders of the District Appellate Authority and of the co-ordinate Bench in CWJC No. 7900 of 2017.
The Court first noted the undisputed factual matrix. Out of the five advertised librarian vacancies, three were for General Category, one for Extremely Backward Category and one for Scheduled Castes. Respondent no. 7 belonged to General Category, while the petitioner belonged to Backward Class Category, for which no post had been earmarked in this recruitment.
It was also not in dispute that respondent no. 7 had secured higher marks than the petitioner. The petitioner had 48.27%, whereas respondent no. 7 had 58.91%.
The Court noted that no candidate from Extremely Backward Class Category or Scheduled Castes category had participated in counselling, leaving those two reserved posts vacant. Four candidates had participated in counselling for the three General Category posts, and a merit list was prepared. In that list, respondent no. 7, despite having higher marks than the petitioner and Puja Kumari Soni, had been wrongly excluded from appointment.
As per marks, only Sunil Kumar, with 62.35%, had higher marks than respondent no. 7. Respondent no. 7 should have been placed at serial no. 2 in the merit panel.
The Court further took note that the District Appellate Authority, in Appeal No. 03 of 2016 filed by respondent no. 7 (where the petitioner was Opposite Party No. 2), had already directed appointment of respondent no. 7 as Librarian after finding that he had secured more marks than the petitioner and had indeed participated in counselling on 13.07.2015.
Respondent no. 6 and the District Appellate Authority both had concluded that respondent no. 7 did in fact participate in counselling; therefore, the petitioner’s assertion that he did not participate had no basis.
The co-ordinate Bench of the Patna High Court in CWJC No. 7900 of 2017 had further directed respondent no. 6 to appoint respondent no. 7 in terms of the District Appellate Authority’s order.
It was in this background that the impugned order dated 07.12.2018 was issued, cancelling the petitioner’s appointment and paving the way for respondent no. 7’s appointment.
Justice Sinha then examined the petitioner’s argument that there were still two vacant librarian posts, meant for Extremely Backward Class and Scheduled Caste categories, on which appointments could be made without disturbing her. The Court observed that, according to the material available on record, only these two posts remained vacant, and both fell under categories to which neither the petitioner nor respondent no. 7 belonged. Hence, no direction could be issued to appoint either of them against those reserved vacancies.
On the core question—who had the better right to the General Category post—the Court held that since the petitioner had secured lesser marks than respondent no. 7 yet was appointed by ignoring his claim, she had to “give way” for respondent no. 7’s appointment to the Librarian post meant for General Category. Respondent no. 7 clearly had a superior claim based on merit and category.
Accordingly, the Court found no infirmity in the impugned memo dated 07.12.2018 cancelling the petitioner’s appointment.
The writ petition was dismissed. There was no order as to costs.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment is significant for candidates in public appointments, especially in Bihar, because it underlines that merit and proper application of reservation rules must prevail over an appointment wrongly made.
Even though the petitioner had already joined and worked as Librarian, the Patna High Court held that a candidate with higher marks, correctly falling within the advertised category, had a better legal right to the post.
The Court also made it clear that when reserved category posts remain vacant due to non-availability of candidates from those categories, candidates who do not belong to those categories cannot claim those posts as a way to save their appointments.
For job aspirants, this decision shows that if they are wrongly left out despite higher merit, they can first approach the District Appellate Authority and, if its orders are not implemented, seek directions from the High Court.
Legal Issues and Answers
Issue: Whether the petitioner’s removal from the Librarian post, to accommodate a higher‑merit candidate from the correct category, was illegal or arbitrary.
Answer: No. The Court held that respondent no. 7, having higher marks and belonging to the General Category for which the post was earmarked, had a better right. The petitioner, with lower marks and no earmarked Backward Class vacancy, was wrongly appointed and had to give way.
Issue: Whether the petitioner or respondent no. 7 could claim appointment against the two still‑vacant posts reserved for Extremely Backward Class and Scheduled Caste categories.
Answer: No. The Court held that those posts were specifically reserved and, as neither the petitioner nor respondent no. 7 belonged to those categories, no direction could be issued to appoint them on those vacancies.
Cases Cited by the Court
- The judgment records an earlier order of a co-ordinate Bench of the Patna High Court in CWJC No. 7900 of 2017, dated 12.04.2018, directing implementation of the District Appellate Authority’s order in favour of respondent no. 7.
- No other reported precedents or case law are expressly cited or relied upon in the text provided.
Case Details
Case Number: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 1852 of 2019
Case Title: Sunita Singh v. The State of Bihar & Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anil Kumar Sinha
Citation: 2024 (1) PLJR 679
Nature of the Case: Writ petition (service matter relating to cancellation of appointment to the post of Librarian under Nagar Parishad, Dehri, Dalmianagar)
Advocates:
- For the Petitioner: Mr. Rama Kant Singh
- For the State: Mr. Prabhakar Jha, GP 27
- For the Nagar Parishad: Mr. Avinash Kumar
- For Respondent No. 7: Mr. Kishore Kumar Thakur, Mr. Braj Kishore Singh
Date of Judgment: 04.12.2023
Impugned Order Challenged: Memo No. 2058 dated 07.12.2018 issued by Nagar Executive Officer-cum-Nagar Shikshak Niyojan Samiti, Nagar Parishad, Dehri, Dalmianagar
Link to Judgment (official): Patna High Court Judgment
If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about
how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar,
you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.
