IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9370 of 2007 RENU KUMARI W/O Dilip Kumar Singh @ Dilip kumar D/O Arjun Prasad R/O village Tulsichak, P.O. Dihri, P.S. Pipra District patna. Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR 2.Director, Social and Welfare, Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3.District Welfare Officer, Patna. 4.Deputy Development Commissioner, patna. 5.District Program Officer, Welfare Department, Patna. 6.Child Development Project Officer, Punpun, District Patna. 7.Mukhia, Gram Panchayat parthu (Punpun), P.O. Parthu, P.S. Pipra, District Patna. 8.Gyanti Devi W/O Chitranjan Kumar R/O village Tulsichak, P.O. Dihri, P.S. Pipra District Patna. ----------- 2 27/11/2009 Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. Prayer of the petitioner in this writ application reads as follows:- “That this application is for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction to cancel the appointment/selection of respondent no.8 on the post of Anganwari Sevika at Anganwari Centre Tulsichak, Gram Panchayat Parthu (Punpun), P.S. Pipra, Distt. Patna as the selection of respondent no.8 is not in accordance with law and guidelines issued from the Govt. of India as well as the State of Bihar. Further a direction be issued to the respondents to consider the name of petitioner afresh and appoint her on the said post in accordance with law.” As with regard to the aforementioned prayer counsel for the petitioner would submit that the selection 2 of respondent no.8 was vitiated both on account of she being not the resident of the area of the Centre in question for which selection and engagement was made by the Gram Sabha. She has further raised an issue that the petitioner was better qualified than respondent no.8. Both aspect of the matter, in fact, have been dealt in the counter affidavit by the official respondents, wherein it has been stated as follows:- “11.That both the petitioner and the Respondent no.8 are Intermediate pass. The petitioner n her matriculation examination held in the year 1994 had obtained 534 out of 900 as is evident from Annexure-1 of the writ application and had secured 2nd division in her Intermediate examination, as is evident from Annexure-2 of the writ application. It is submitted that 534 out of 900 comes to 59.33 percent. Since the petitioner had secured 2nd division in Intermediate examination a weightage of 5 marks is to be given, which comes to 64.33 percent. 12.That the Respondent no.8 passed her Matriculation examination from High School Noora and secured 416 out of 700, which comes to 59.44 percent, since the Respondent no.8 had secured 2nd division in Intermediate examination a weightage of 5 marks is to be given, which comes 64.44 percent, thus in terms of marks obtained the Respondent no.8 is marginally ahead of the petitioner. 13.That with regard to para 21 of the writ petition that the Respondent no.8 is not a resident of Tulsi Chak, it is submitted that the Block Development Officer, Punpun had issued a residential certificate dated 24.01.2007, showing that the Respondent no.8 is a resident of Tulsi Chak and is wife of Ranjit kumar Singh, as such the allegation that the Respondent no.8 is not a resident of Tulsi 3 Chak stands falsified.” It has to be noted that such counter affidavit was filed with a copy served on the petitioner’s counsel on 21.1.2008, but the same has not been denied till date. The net effect would be that the authorities were satisfied not only with regard to the higher qualification but also with regard to residential qualification of respondent no.8. This Court would therefore find no illegality in such selection of respondent no.8 and consequently the grievance of the petitioner on the aforementioned two issues raised by him in his representation filed before the Collector also stands answered requiring no interference. That being so, this Court must hold that this writ application is wholly misconceived and the same is accordingly dismissed. Abhay Kumar (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)