IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5473 of 2005 ANUPAMA DEVI, WIFE OF SRI SHAMBHU SAH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE – BAIJALPUR, P.S. SABOUR, DISTRICT – BHAGALPUR. ………….. PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY WELFARE DEPRTMENT, STATE OF BIHAR, PATNA. 2. DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER, BHAGALPUR. 3. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, BHAGALPUR. 4. DEPUTY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER, BHAGALPUR. 5. DISTRICT WELFARE OFFICER, BHAGALPUR. 6. CHILD DEVELOPMENT PLANNING OFFICER CUM BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, SABOUR, DISTRICT – BHAGALPUR. 7. JULIE DEVI WIFE OF DHIRENDRA RAJAK, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE – BARARI, P.S. BARARI, DISTRICT – BHAGALPUR. 8. MUKHIA GRAM PANCHAYAT BAIJALPUR SABOUR, BHAGALPUR NAMELY VINAY YADAV SON OF NOT KNOWN. …………… RESPONDENTS. For the petitioner : - Mr. Janki Nandan Prasad, Advocate For the State : - Mr. Alok Ranjan, AC to GP 17 For Respondent No. 7 : - Mr. Manoj Kumar Jha, Advocate ----------- 04/ 06.05.2011 Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel appearing for the State. Respondent No. 7 Juli Kumari has filed counter affidavit. Petitioner had applied for her selection on the post of Anganwari Sevika in Centre No. 1 Harijan Tola, Baijalpur, Bhagalpur. She claims to be the resident of Harijan Tola of Baijalpur and also that she fulfills all criteria for being selected to the post as per the guideline. Since, Anganwari centre is situated at Harijan Tola as such being resident of Harijan Tola she was most eligible candidate for being selected to 2 the post. However, Respondent No. Juli Kumari, who is the resident of Barari of Bhagalpur town, has been selected for the post. Petitioner had challenged the selection of Respondent No. 7 as Anganwari centre is situated at Harijan Tola, Baijalpur. Respondent No. 7 along with her counter affidavit has annexed documents in support of this fact that she is permanent resident of Baijalpur. Her father-in-law and other family members have landed property in the village. In support of this fact she has annexed copy of khatiyan and voter list to show that she is a voter of Baijalpur. Respondent No. 7 claims to be the most eligible candidate for selection on the ground that she belongs to the beneficiary group of the locality where centre is situated. It is also stated that her husband had died, as such being widow she should be given priority as per the guideline. On perusal of documents annexed with the counter affidavit filed by Respondent No. 7, I find allegations made by the petitioner that Respondent No. 7 is not the resident of centre’s place where Anganwari centre is situated, has no substance. 3 Respondent No. 7 has been selected by the Ama Sabha, considering the eligibility of the petitioner as well as Respondent No. 7. I do not find any merit in this application. It is dismissed. DKS/ (Mridula Mishra, J.)