IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8201 of 2002 1. ANITA KUMARI 2.SUSHILA KUMARI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 3. 11.02.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for private Respondents 9 & 10. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 14.6.2002 appointing Respondents 9 &10 as Anganbari Sevika and Angan Wari Sahaeeka at Kachara within Kachara Gram Panchayat. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were selected for the post by Aam Sabha held on 13.4.2002. in which CDPO was also present as mandatory requirement. Ignoring their selection for appointment, the official Respondents have called upon Respondents 9 & 10 to join the post. Learned counsels for the State and the private Respondents from their respective counter affidavit submit that Respondents 9 &10 were considered and selected by the Aam Sabha on 20.7.1998 in which CDPO was also present. Before they could join their post, the ICDS Project in the village was deferred. After the ICDS Project recommenced and new Rules came into force, instructions were issued by the State Respondent that those selections made in 1998 shall not be disturbed and appointment 2 shall be made in accordance with the same as the only reason was that the ICDS Project in the village has been temporarily shelved. Ignoring the Government instruction, fresh Aam Sabha meeting was held and the petitioners were selected. If the Aam Sabha proceeded to consider the petitioners on 13.4.2002 contrary to the Government instructions dated 19.10.2001 and 7.1.2002 and the CDPO being a Government servant aided in the same by permitting fresh selection when it had already specifically been prohibited, no right flows to the petitioners. The law stands settled that the Anganbari Sevika and Anganbari Sahaeeka do not hold a Government post. This Court, therefore, finds no merit in the writ application. It is, accordingly, dismissed. AKS/ (Navin Sinha, J.)