IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2353 of 2011 BAJDHA BHARTI W/O SHRI ANJANI KUMAR R/O VILL.+ PO-TARWAN, PS- WAZIRGANJ, DISTT-GAYA-PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE COMMISSIONER MAGADH RANGE, GAYA, 3. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, GAYA 4. THE B.D.O. WAZIRGANJ BLOCK (GAYA) 5. THE CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER, WAZIRGANJ,GAYA 6. THE DISTRICT PROGRAM OFFICER, GAYA. 7. THE MUKHIYA, GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ TARWAN,DISTT-GAYA 8. THE SECY. GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ TARWAN, DISTT-GAYA 9. KAVITA KUMARI W/O MAHESH KUMAR CHOUDHARY R/O VILL-TARWAN POST-TARWAN, PS-WAZIRGANJ DISTT-GAYA---RESPONDENTS. ----------- 3 21.6.2011 Heard learned counsel for the parties. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order contained in annexure-1 which is passed by the Divisional Commissioner in Anganbari Service Appeal No. 13 of 2010. By virtue of this order dated 26.8.2010 the Divisional Commissioner has upturned the order of District Magistrate which held in favour of petitioner’s right for appointment as Anganbari Sevika. Contention of the petitioner is that mapping of the population of the area was carried out afresh at the instance of the District Magistrate and it was certified that the area was dominated by backward class community. In terms of the policy of the State Government appointment of Anganbari Sevika has to be made from the dominant community and it was in this background she got her right for appointment. However respondent no.9, Kavita Kumari filed an appeal in which it was held that she belongs to Scheduled Caste community and had a right for appointment as such because she belonged to Scheduled Caste category and that was good enough to allow her claim. - 2 - Though power has been filed on behalf of respondent no.9 and this matter was adjourned yesterday for appearance of the counsel, even today there is none to represent respondent no. 9. The finding of the District Magistrate cannot be set aside in appeal merely on the whims and fancy of the Divisional Commissioner. There is nothing from the order that there was any independent material to show that the area in question was dominated by scheduled caste community and therefore respondent no.9 had a right for appointment. If that is so and in absence of any cogent material the appellate authority has gone beyond the record and recorded his independent opinion which ought not to have been done in this case. If that be so then there is infirmity in the order of Divisional Commissioner contained in annexure-1 and as such Annexure-1 dated 26.8.2010 stands quashed. This writ application is allowed. RPS (Ajay Kumar Tripathi,J.)