IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6531 of 2007 SANJU KUMARI, wife of Shashi Kant Lal Karn, resident of Ward No. 14, Block Road, Rosera, Nagar Panchayat, P. S. Rosera, District- Samstipur… .. Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR, through the District Magistrate, Samastipur. 2. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Rosera, District- Samstipur 3. The District Welfare Officer, District- Samastipur. 4. The Child Development Project Officer, Rosera, District- Samastipur. 5. The Headmisteress, Government Girls Primary School, Laxmipur, Rosera, District Samastipur. 6. The ward Counsellor, Ward No. 14, Rosera Nagar Panchayat Rosera, District- Samastipur. 7. Vinita Kumari, wife of Arun Kumar Karn @ Arun Kumar Lal, resident of village Phulhara, P. S. Hasanpur, District samastipur, presently at house No. 74, Paswan Tola, Ward No. 14, Rosera, P. S. Rosera, District- Samastipur. … Respondents. ----------- 3. 26.11.2009. Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ application reads as follows:- “(i) That this is an application for a direction to the respondent authorities to consider and appoint the petitioner as Anganwari Sevika for the Anganwari Centre No. 28 at Paswan Tola, Block Road in Ward No. 14 in Rosara Nagar Panchayat who should have been appointed in place of respondent no. 7, who was ineligible for being appointed as Anganwari Sewika for that Centre as she was resident of different village and wife of a licensee of Government Stamp Vender and further for issuance of direction, holding the appointment of 2 respondent no. 7 to be illegal as the same has been done in partison manner due to partial attitude of Mukhia against eligibility criteria laid down in circular of the State Government 2783 dated 3.10.2006.” Earlier this court noticing the following submission of learned counsel for the petitioner in the order dated 23.7.2007 had issued notice on private respondent no. 7:- “The petitioner challenges the appoint of respondent no. 7 as Anganwari Sevika in respect of Ward No. 14, Centre No. 28, Rosera Nagar Panchayat, District- Samastipur. It is submitted that in view of Govt. Circular (Annexure-2) dated 3.10.2006 wife or daughter in- law or a person engaged in semi government services like stamp vendors are disqualified. The same is established by Annexures 6 and 7-B wherein it is admitted by the competent authorities that the husband of respondent no. 7 was granted stamp vendor licence in place of father-in- law, who continued to be the licence stamp vendor, which disqualified respondent no. 7 form being selected as such.” Counsel for the petitioner therefore would submit that the case of 3 petitioner remains confined to the fact that respondent no. 7 on account of her father-in- law and husband being stamp vendors stands disqualified in terms of Government Circular. Counsel for respondent no. 7 has not filed any counter affidavit specially denying the stand of petitioner in paragraph 10 that there are two stamp venders in the family of respondent no. 7 by way of her father-in-law and her husband but then he would submit that the expression „stamp vendor‟ has not been included in the Government Circular and as such the respondent no. 7 was not disqualified for being appointed as Anganwari Sevika. Relevant part of Government Circular for the purpose of this writ application reads as follows:- ¼M½ yksd lsodksa ¼eqf[k;k] iapk;r lfefr ds lnL;@okMZ lnL;@ ftyk ifj’kn ds lnL; vkfn Lo;a ;k muds fjLrsnkj½] fofHkUu ljdkjh lkekfxz;ksa ds fodzsrkvksa tSls tu forj.k iz.kkyh fodzsrk] ?kqeUrq fdjklu rsy ds fodzsrk (Delaer)] vUrjfoHkxh; Mkd[kkuk dehZ (Intra-departmental Post Office Employee bR;kfn) ljdkjh ,oa v}Zljdkjh lsodksa ds fj'rsnkj ;Fkk] csVh@iRuh@iqrzo?kw@ikSrzo?kw dk p;u bl in ds fy, ugha fd;k tk;sxk A (underlining for emphasis) 4 In the opinion of this Court, the aforementioned examples set out in the Government Circular by way of prohibiting/disqualifying certain category of persons for the post of Anganbari Sevika is only illustrative and not exhaustive. A strict interpretation of aforesaid clause would only go to show that all such persons receiving any sort of income from Government Revenue have been totally excluded from the zone of consideration for the assignment of Anganbari Sevika. Thus there would be no difficulty that the scope of said clause of circular is only illustrative and not exhaustive in nature and the use of the expression “tSls” therein would only connote that there could be possibility of inclusion of more persons fulfilling the test of deriving of some incomes from the Government revenue. It thus cannot be said the stamp vendors receiving income by way of commission from government revenue would stand excluded inasmuch as even the dealers of public distribution system and mobile kerosene oil vendors get only commission for selling the 5 government commodity. Thus the submission of learned counsel for respondent no. 7 that mere receipt of meagre income from the government resources to a stamp vendor cannot be treated as assured income is also not acceptable to this Court inasmuch as the said classification is not based on any quantified income. In such a situation, this court must hold selection and appointment of respondent no. 7 as Anganwari Sevika was against the specific prohibition made in the government circular. Consequently, such selection and appointment of respondent no. 7 on the post of Anganbari Sevika must be held to be bad and is accordingly quashed. The resultant vacancy on the post of Anganwari Sevika will now be filled up afresh in terms of Government Circular where the case of petitioner will be considered along with other eligible candidates and since the petitioner had ranked second in the earlier section she would not be required to file any fresh application but then she would remain present in course of meeting of Gram 6 Panchayat as and when such selection would be undertaken by Gram Sabha. It goes without saying that if both husband and father-in-law of respondent no. 7 are now no longer holding licence of stamp vendor, even her case may be considered in the fresh exercise to be undertaken by Gram Panchayat subject to her being eligible in all other respects. It is also clarified that the petitioner will not be disqualified on the ground of her becoming over age keeping in view that she was the second candidate in earlier process of selection and her appointment could not be made only because of an illegality creeping in the selection and appointment of respondent no. 7. With the aforementioned observations and directions, this writ application is allowed. kanchan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)