IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6857 of 2005 Punam Devi, Wife of Shri Hari Narayan Ram, Resident of Village, Post Office and Police Station Baruraj, District Muzaffarpur. ------- Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Commissioner and Secretary, Social Welfare, Government of Bihar. 3. The Deputy Development Commissioner, Muzaffarpur. 4. The District Welfare Officer, Muzaffarpur. 5. The Bal Vikash Pariyojna Padadhikari, Baruraj Motipur, District Muzaffarpur. 6. The Block Development Officer, Motipur, District Muzaffarpur. 7. The Panchayat Sevak, Baruraj (West), District Muzaffarpur. 8. Shri Bhuvneshwar Ram, Mukhiya Gram Panchayat Raj, Baruraj, West, Block Patepur Police Station + Post Office- Baruraj, District Muzaffarpur. 9. Smt. Usha Shahi, Wife of Sri Pawan Shahi, Resident of Village + Police Station & Post Office Baruraj, District Muzaffarpur. --------- Respondents ----------- 4 13.11.2009 No one appears on behalf of the petitioner. Counsels for the state and private respondent no.9 are present. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ application reads as follows:- “1. That this is an application for issuance of an appropriate Writ(s), order(s) and/or direction(s) for (a) quashing the letter dated 25.03.2005 issued by the Respondent no.4 and all action/proceedings taken in pursuance thereto by Respondent authorities for (b) commanding the Respondents no. 1 to 3 to issue appointment letter to the petitioners as Angan Bari Sevika for Centre No.4 under Gram Panchayat Raj Baruraj Paschim 2 District Muzaffarpur and to allow the petitioner to work as such and (c) any other relief(s) which may be deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice.” Counsel for the respondents would invite attention of this Court towards the earlier order dated 28.2.2007 wherein this Court after noticing the submissions and pleadings of the petitioner and the State had passed a detailed order staying the selection and appointment of the respondent no.9 in the following terms:- “In paragraph-10 of the writ petition, it has been stated that Centre no.4 was reserved for Scheduled Caste candidates. That assertion has been accepted in paragraph-16 of the counter affidavit filed by the State respondents. In paragraph-15 of the writ petition, it has been stated that the respondent no.9 belongs to General Category. This assertion has been accepted in paragraph-21 of the counter affidavit of the State respondents. In the counter affidavit, filed by the State, it has not been stated that apart from the petitioner, who according to the State respondents, did not belong to below poverty line, no other member of the Scheduled Caste Community belonging to below poverty line, having qualification of matric fail or matric pass, was available for appointment. According to the rules framed for appointment of Anganbari Sevika only in 3 case of non-availability of candidates having prescribed qualification in the class of majority of beneficiaries of Anganbari Centres a member belonging to Scheduled Caste/ Scheduled Tribe, Most Backward Class, Backward Class, Minority Community and General Category may be appointed in chronological order. It has not been stated in the counter affidavit that no one having such qualification and belonging to Most Backward Class or Backward Class or Minority Community were available and accordingly, a General Category candidate had to be appointed. Prima facie, therefore, it appears that the appointment of the respondent no.9 is contrary to the rules. In those circumstances, while notice should be issued to the respondent no.9 by Registered Post with A/District for which requisites must be filed within two weeks from today, the appointment of the respondent no.9 is stayed until further orders.” Mr. Manglam, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no.9 would, however, submit that this Court was not informed that there were only three candidates for the selection on the post of Angan Bari Sevika in respect of Centre No.4, namely, Smt. Usha Kumari (Respondent No.9), Seema Devi and Punam Devi (Petitioner) and out of them, Seema Devi and Punam Devi were not found to be 4 eligible by the Gram Sabha on the ground that they had not submitted the BPL number and income certificate as also an additional reason was given in the case of the petitioner that her father-in-law was in Government service. Mr. Mangalam, therefore, has also submitted that out of them, the only eligible candidate left out was the respondent no.9 and she was accordingly rightly selected and appointed. It is true that the writ petitioner Punam Devi was found to be disqualified also on the ground of her father-in-law being in Government service which would takeaway her right of being considered and appointed in terms of the policy of the State Government for not appointment any such person as Angan Bari Sevika whose immediate relative either father-in-law or the husband or any family member is in Government service or beneficiary of any Governmental assignment but, then, this Court would find that the case of another candidate, namely, Seema Devi was rejected only on the ground of her being not submitting the BPL card number and income certificate. If 5 Seema Devi was not belonging to general category, she had definitely a better right of being appointed in comparison to Bhumihar by caste and thus of general category as is contemplated under the scheme for appointment on the post of Angan Bari Sevika. There is nothing on record to show that Seema Devi does not belong to the scheduled caste category and in fact her husband’s name being Lakhindra Ram, a title being usually attached in this State with the schedule caste person is prima- faice evidence of her belonging to scheduled caste. In fact, she was also not held to be disqualified on account of lack of educational qualification. The circular of the State Government provides for appointment of Angan Bari Sevika amongst the scheduled caste, scheduled tribe candidates who are non-matric by way of first preference if they form majority in the centre. It is this aspect of the matter which would again make the appointment of the private respondent no.9 vulnerable, inasmuch as, it is not in doubt that she was appointed in an area and for a centrer forming majority of schedule caste 6 only after edging out the candidate of schedule caste category, namely, Seema Devi. This Court, however, would not interfere with the appointment of the respondent no.9 for the present and would only remit the matter back to the Collector of the district who would now examine the resolution of the Gram Sabha and if it is found by him that Seema Devi despite being a scheduled caste candidate was ignored and the respondent no.9 belonging to the general category was favoured by such illegal selection and appointment, he would set aside the appointment of the respondent no.9 and direct the Child Development Project Officer to get a fresh meeting of Gram Sabha convened for considering of all eligible persons including Seema Devi, not made party to the writ petition for appointment on such post of Angan Bari Sevika. Till such a decision is taken by the Collector of the district, the interim order passed by this Court dated 28.2.2007 staying appointment of respondent no.9 as quoted above shall continue. It is, however, expected that the Collector of the district would decide 7 this issue expeditiously preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order but before taking such a decision, he would definitely give an opportunity of hearing to all concerned including the petitioner, respondent no.9 and Seema Devi. With the aforementioned observations and direction, this application is disposed of. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)