IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11523 of 2011 Rubi Kumari Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors ---------------------------------- 2 21.9.2011 By virtue of Annexure-1 dated 15.2.2011 appointment of the petitioner on the post of Anganbari Sewika was held to be bad by the District Magistrate, Rohtas at Sasaram.This order contained in Annexure-1 has been challenged by the petitioner on the ground that the reason given by the District Magistrate to annul the appointment of the petitioner on the post is no longer good law. The only ground on which the appointment of the petitioner was set aside is that the father of the petitioner is said to be a Government servant and in terms of the guidelines issued by the State Government a person was disqualified from consideration for appointment if a father or a close relation, indicated in the guidelines, was a Government servant. Counsel for the petitioner has produced a Judgment rendered in the case of Sunita Kumari versus the State of Bihar and others which was C.W.J.C.No.12911/07 decided on 6th May,2010. The learned Single Judge taking into consideration the law laid down by the Apex Court where a bar was created with regard to the appointment of a person having relative working as a Government servant had held it to be ultra vires and hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Counsel for the petitioner informs the Court that keeping in view the decision of the learned Single Judge subsequent amendment has been brought about and such a clause no longer figures in the 2 advertisement which are now issued by the respondent State. The law declared by the High Court on this aspect was on 6th May,2010 which took effect immediately. If that be so, then the District Magistrate has obviously erred in holding that the petitioner’s appointment was illegal per se because her father was supposed to be a Government servant on 15.2.2011. Reasons given by the District Magistrate for annulling the appointment of the petitioner on the post of Anganbari Sewika is in the teeth of the decision of the High Court rendered in the case of Sunita Kumari Annexure-1 stands quashed. Writ application is allowed. Respondents are directed to restore the petitioner on the post of Anganbari Sewika forthwith. Let a copy of the order rendered in the case of Sunita Kumari produced by the petitioner be placed on record. AnilKrSinha (Ajay Kumar Tripathi,J.)