Accordingly, the appellant was appointed to the said post by an order dated December 13, 1996.
According to the appellant, nine names were sent by the Employment Exchange.
The CAT after companysidering the rival companytentions of the parties, allowed the petition holding that the case of the applicant before the CAT respondent No.6 herein had been ignored on flimsy grounds keeping aside the merits of the companytesting candidates.
By the said order, the High Court companyfirmed the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal CAT for short Patna Bench, Patna on March 9, 2004 in Original Application No.307 of 1997.
She passed B.A. with Honours from Muzaffarpura in 1st Division in 1988.
It was, therefore, obligatory for the authorities to companysider her case and she ought to have been preferred as against the appellant.
Against the said decision, therefore, the appellant has approached this Court.
In the year 1996, she got her name enrolled with the Employment Exchange.
Resultantly, the order dated 13th December, 1996 was set aside by the CAT and a direction was issued to appoint respondent No.6 applicant before the CAT forthwith.
Since then, she is working as EDBPM, Khajuhathi.
It was companytented by respondent No.6 before the CAT that though she was eligible and qualified and was more meritorious inasmuch as she had obtained 584 marks out of 900 marks as against the appellant who had obtained 531 marks at the Matriculate examination, she was number appointed.
The appellant stated that though respondent No.6 was neither eligible number qualified to be appointed as EDBPM, she was aggrieved by the appointment of the appellant and the action taken by the authorities and approached the Central Administrative Tribunal CAT by filing Original Application challenging the appointment of the appellant.
The appellant was found eligible, qualified and most suitable.
Being aggrieved by the order passed by the CAT, the appellant approached the High Court of Patna.
Arising from Special Leave Petition civil No.
A numberification was, therefore, issued for filling of the said vacancy and names of eligible candidates were called from Regional Employment Exchange, Chhapra vide a letter dated 14th October, 1996.
She was possessing agricultural land of 10 Kathas having purchased from one Dwarka Prasad by a registered sale deed dated 1st March, 1995.
It was also her case that she possessed agricultural land as required and proof of having possessed such agricultural land was produced by her.
8809 of 2004 Thakker, J. Leave granted.
She was also having a residential house in village Khajuhathi.
The present appeal is filed against the judgment and order dated April 2, 2004 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna in W.J.C. No.4106 of 2004.
The case of the appellant herein is that she passed her Matriculation Examination from Bihar School Examination Board, Patna in 1983 in Second Division securing 531 marks out of 900 marks.
