IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6617 of 2005 Seema Kumari alias Seema Devi, Wife of Prabhat Kumar, Resident of Ward No. 14, Village Khemaipatti, Grampanchayat Manikpur, P.S. Minapur, District Muzaffarpur. ---------- Petitioner Versus 1 The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Bihar, Patna. 2 The Secretary, Rural Development Department, Bihar, Patna. 3 The Secretary, I.C.D.S. Directorate, Welfare Department, Bihar, Patna. 4 The Director, Social Welfare Department, Bihar, Patna. 5 The District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur. 6 The Block Development Officer, Minapur, District Muzaffarpur. 7 The Child Development Project Officer, Minapur – cum – Mahila Supervisor, Minapur Block, Minapur. 8 The Mukhiya, Grampanchayat Raj, Manikpur, Block Minapur, District Muzaffarpur. 9 The Panchayat Secretary, Grampanchayat Raj, Manipur, Block Minapur, District Muzaffarpur. 10 Smt. Pushpa Devi, Wife of Mahesh Prasad, Resident of Ward No. 12, Village Khemaipatti, Grampanchayat Manikpur, P.S. Minapur, District Muzaffarpur. ----------- Respondents ----------- 3 13.11.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, counsel for the official respondent as also counsel for the State. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ application reads as follows:- “1(i) For issuance of a direction commanding the respondent no.7 the Child Development Project Officer, Minapur, Muzaffarpur for production of the appointment letter of respondent no. 10 Puspa Devi, who was appointed as Aganwari Sevika for Aganwari Centre 156 situated in village Khemaipatti (Dusadhotoli) under Grampanchayat Manipur, Block Minapur, District Muzaffarpur. (ii) For quashing of the appointment letter of 2 respondent no.10 issued under the signature of the Child Development Project Officer, Minapur, District Muzaffarpur whereby and whereunder appointment of respondent no.10 has been made ignoring the Rule and norms and preferential right of the beneficiaries. (iii) For issuance of a direction commanding the respondent no.7 the Child Development Project Officer, Minapur, District Muzaffarpur for appointment of the petitioner as Aganwari Sevika for Aganwari Centre 156, village Khemaipatti (Dusadh toil) under Panchayat Manikpur, Block Minapur, District Muzaffarpur.” Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the case of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Anganwari Sevika was rejected by the Aam Sabha on non-existing criteria, namely, that she has not produced her income certificate. In order to support the submission, learned counsel for the petitioner would draw the attention of this Court towards the resolution of the Gram Sabha (Annexure-A to the Counter Affidavit) wherein it has been recorded that the applications of Seema Kumari and Bibha Kumari were rejected by the Aam Sabha only on the ground of non-submission of the income certificate. Learned counsel for the State is not in a position to support the said resolution of the Gram Sabha by pointing out any specific condition in the circular of the 3 State Government dated 13th Jun, 1998 and subsequent circulars dated 25.9.2001 and 10.12.2003 requiring the candidates to furnish income certificate along with the application. Learned counsel for the State, however, has submitted that in order to find out as to who amongst the candidates belong to the poverty line, there would be always an inbuilt requirement for examining the income, inasmuch as, the appointment has to be made from amongst the candidates belonging to below the poverty line group. In the opinion of this Court, such a sweeping submission on behalf of the respondents cannot be accepted, inasmuch as, what is really required under the circular of the State Government is that selection of the concerned Anganwari Sevika from a tola has to be made from amongst the majority of the population only. In the present case, it is not in controversy that though the area in question was a Harijan tola, somehow the authorities had gone to record that it is the minority (Muslim) who are forming the bulk of the population and are majority in that Panchayat. The concept under Government Circular is that if there is no candidate available from amongst the population forming the majority, the selection has to be made in preferential order by giving an opportunity to scheduled caste, 4 scheduled tribe, backward and then only to the general candidates. From the perusal of the resolution dated 11.12.2004 of the Gramsabha, it however, does not transpire that such a prescribed procedure was followed in course of selection and appointment on the part of Angan Bari Sevika. This Court, however, would find that as the respondent no.10 has not been noticed and keeping the matter pending, after finding the aforementioned apparent anomaly, would be only wasting of time. In that view of the matter, this Court would direct the Collector of the district to look into the grievance of the petitioner as with regard to the selection/appointment of respondent no.10 and if it is found by him that the appointment of the respondent no.10 was not made in terms of the circular of the State Government, he would first issue notice to the respondent no.10 and after hearing the petitioner, the respondent no.10 as also the representative of the Gram Panchayat, in question, would take a final decision by a reasoned order within a period of six months from the date of filing of a fresh representation by the petitioner. It is, however, made clear that if the respondent no.10 is not found to be qualified and eligible for her appointment on the post of Anganbari Sevika, the Collector of the district after 5 holding her appointment to be bad will remit the matter back to the Gram Panchayat for holding of a fresh meeting of Gram Sabha for a fresh decision for the appointment on the post of Anganbari Sevika. With the aforementioned observations and direction, this application is disposed of. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)