Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J. – Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel representing respondent no. 11.

2. The appellant, in the present Letters Patent Appeal, is aggrieved by order dated 04.09.2013, passed by learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 12731/2011. By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ application and refused to interfere with the order dated 20.06.2011, passed by the District Teachers Employment Appellate Tribunal, Samastipur, (hereinafter referred to as “the Appellate Tribunal”) in case no. 1474/2011, as contained in Annexure-11 to the writ application.

3. The writ petitioner-appellant had earlier challenged before the Appellate Tribunal, the decision of the selection committee appointing respondent no. 11 namely, Smt. Sunita Kumari as Panchayat Teacher in Nav Srijit Prathmik Vidyalaya, Banghara, Mushari, Dalsingsarai, District – Samastipur.

4. The brief facts as may be culled out from the pleadings of the parties, the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal, Samastipur, and then, the order passed in the writ application by the learned Single Judge may be summarized as under: –

5. The appellant having passed matriculation examination in the year 1993 in 2nd Division and the intermediate examination in the year 1995 with 60% marks went for training and formal education programme in between 27.02.1997 to 08.03.1997 and also did 10 days training course in the year 1998. By virtue of this she got an experience certificate dated 30.10.2008. The mark-sheet and the experience certificate of the petitioner are enclosed as Annexure-1 & 2 series to the writ application.

6. The Human Resources Department, Government of Bihar, published an advertisement for appointment of Panchayat Teacher which was published in newspaper on 30.08.2008 giving schedule of the 2nd phase of appointment of Panchayat Teachers. There happened a vacancy in unreserved female category (in short “URF”) which is bone of contention in the present case.

7. The appellant being eligible applied under unreserved female category. She claims that by virtue of her marks obtained in the formal education she got 60 marks and then training certificate made her eligible for 20 marks. Respondent no. 11 claimed her eligibility on the marks obtained in formal education being 60.66% and 20 marks against an experience certificate which was shown to have been issued from the office of District Superintendent of Education, Samastipur, thus she claimed 80.66% marks. In the meeting held on 18.11.2008, the selection committee decided to prepare a merit list of the candidates in different categories over and above the cut-off percentage. Annexure-6 contains the minutes of the meetings. It is contended that for unreserved female category merit list was to be prepared from and among the candidates who had secured more than 77.55% marks. Accordingly, a merit list was prepared in which the respondent no. 11 was placed at serial no. 6, while the appellant was placed at serial no. 7. Therefore, the selection committee of the Panchayati Raj in its meeting held on 30.11.2008 decided to call the candidates from the merit list equal to 10 times of the available post for the purpose of counselling.

8. The counselling took place on 28.02.2009, in which a total 19 candidates belonging to different categories appeared. It is not in dispute that on this date appellant and respondent no. 11 were also present. The appellant pointed out that finally one Sajani Kumari having highest marks in the merit list was selected and was placed at serial no. 1 in the list dated 01.03.2009, in the unreserved female category.

9. A perusal of the merit list dated 01.03.2009 (Annexure-6) would show that Kumari Sajani was placed at serial no. 1 with 86.44% marks, however, the respondent no. 11 Sunita Kumari was placed at serial no. 4 with 80.66%, just above this petitioner who stood at serial no. 5 with 80% marks. On 01.03.2009, respond