IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1850 of 2010 1. BASANTI DEVI @ BASANTI KUMARI W/O RAM DEV CHAUDHARY R/O VILL.- RAM RAI CHAK, P.S.- SIRADALA, DISTT.- NAWADAH Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, NAWADA 3. THE DISTRICT WELFARE OFFICER, NAWADAH 4. THE DISTRICT PROGRAMME OFFICER, NAWADAH 5. THE S.D.O., SIRADALA, NAWADAH 6. THE B.D.O., SIRADALA, NAWADAH 7. C.D.P.O., SIRADALA, NAWADAH 8. THE MUKHIYA, GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ, GHAGHAT, SIRDALA, NAWADAH 9. SMT. INDU KUMARI W/O BIRENDRA KUMAR CHAUDHARY R/O VILL.- RAM RAI CHAK, P.S.- SINDALA, DISTT.- NAWADAH ----------- 2. 05.08.2010 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 28.10.2009 by which she has been removed from the post of Anganwari Sevika. Learned Counsel for the petitioner assails the order to submit that respondent no. 9 is ineligible for appointment though she may have had higher marks than the petitioner as her mother-in-law was employed in the Post Office and the regulation prohibits respondent no. 9 as the daughter-in-law from being considered for such appointment. He next submits that the impugned order has been passed by the District Programme Officer who was incompetent to test the issues for eligibility of appointment. Relying upon a Division Bench decision of this Court reported in 2010 (2) PLJR 374 dated 16.2.2010 it is submitted that the order is completely without jurisdiction. The impugned order states that the Director, I.C.D.S., by his letter no. 2838 dated 21.9.2007 had clarified that an applicant who was a relative of one employed in extra departmental Post Office was not ineligible for appointment. This Court finds no infirmity in that reasoning as under Clause 3(e) of the regulation for appointment of Anganwari Sevika/Sahaika it is only when the relative of the specified applicant was an inter departmental Post Office employee that the person would have been ineligible for appointment. The petitioner herself acknowledges having lesser marks than respondent no. 9. That leaves us with the question of the Division Bench judgment. Without going into the issue of whether the Division Bench judgement would reopen matters decided and closed earlier by giving it retrospective effect, the short question for consideration in this case is that if this court were to interfere on that ground alone it would result in revival of an illegal situation where a person with admittedly lesser marks would be appointed violating the regulation which mandates the appointment of a person with higher marks. It stands settled that the Court shall not interfere merely because it may be proper to interfere specially when it shall result in revival of an illegal situation. This application is dismissed. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)