IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5317 of 2005 POONAM KUMARI, wife of Kumar Indra Bhushan @ Indra Bhushan Yadav, resident of village Dudhaila under Gram Panchayat Kurkurdaura, P.S.-Andhra Math, District-Madhubani. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Department of Welfare Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. District Magistrate, Madhubani. 4. Deputy Development Commissioner, Madhubani. 5. Sub. Divisional Officer, Phulparas, P.S.-Phulparas, District-Madhubani. 6. Block Development Officer, Laukahi, P.S.-Laukahi, District-Madhubani. 7. Child Development Project Officer, Laukahi, P.S.-Laukahi, District- Madhubani. 8. Binod Kumar Singh @ Pandit Yadav, son of Late Asharfi Lal Singh Yadav, resident of village Dudhaila P.S.-Andhra Math, District Madhubani, presently Mukhiya of Gram Panchayat Raj Kukurdaura, under Laukahi Block in the district of Madhubani. 9. Pawan Kumari, wife of Sri Arbind Kumar Yadav, resident of village- Dudhaila, P.S.-Andhra Math District-Madhubani. ----------- 6 12/11/2009 Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. Prayer of the petitioner in this writ application reads as follows:- “That this is an application for issuance of directions, orders or writs commanding the respondent authorities particularly respondent no. 7 to produce the appointment/selection letter of respondent no.9 along with the record of her selection on the post of Anganwari Sevika for Dudhaila Madhya Anganwari Centre under Gram Panchayat Raj kukurdaura in the district of Madhubani and aforesaid selection was made in the so called General Body meeting of the Gram Panchayat held on 31.1.2004 under the chairmanship of the respondent no. 8 for the purpose of selection on the post of Anganbari Sevika and Sahaika and after such production of the selection/appointment letter of respondent no. 9 and records of such selection, be further pleased to quash the same on the ground that the selection of the respondent no. 9 is in complete violation of the government circulars and orders having statutory force. 2 And the respondent authorities may be commended to appoint/select the petitioner on the post of Anganbari Sevika for Dudhaila Madhya Anganwari Centre under Kurkurdaura Gram Panchayat since she was/is the most suitable candidate for the post of Anganwari Sevika for the aforesaid Centre." With reference to the aforementioned prayer learned Counsel for the petitioner would raise a very short question, inasmuch as, it has been asserted that both the petitioner and respondent no. 9 belong to same caste and are also amongst Below Poverty Line (B.P.L.) . It has been shown from the counter affidavit by counsel for the petitioner that even when the petitioner was having better qualification of intermediate, the respondent no. 9 was selected and appointed in violation of the guidelines as laid down by the State Government requiring the selection only among the same category of persons who are resident of having largest population of the are and that too of a better qualified candidate. Counsel for the State, on the other hand, would only submit that the petitioner's case was considered and the Aam Sabha did not find the petitioner eligible to be appointed as against the claim and case of respondent no. 9. This Court, noticing that the issue involved could have directly affecting the interest of respondent no. 9, had issued notice to her and despite of its service and also filing Vakalatnama in this case and appearance of name of her two counsels who had filed Vakalatnama on her behalf, in the cause list, no one has appeared on her behalf to place her defence in support of her selection and 3 appointment. As a matter of fact, no counter affidavit has also been filed by respondent no. 9 in this case till date. The inter-se claim of the petitioner, vis-a-vis, respondent no. 9 however gets cleared from the document as contained in Annexure- A, the extract of the proceeding book, where the petitioner is shown to be better qualified than respondent no. 9. There is a clear provision in the policy of the State Government that among the same group a better qualified person has to be given preference. Such provisions of circular was obviously not taken into account by the official respondents as also the C.D.P.O. who were the duty bound to at least bring those facts to the notice of the Aam Sabha while taking final decision on the selection and appointment of Anganbari Sevika. Thus, for the reasons indicated above this Court would not be in a position to uphold the decision of the Aam Sabha as with regard to selection and appointment of respondent no. 9 and the same is accordingly quashed. As a consequence of quashing the appointment of respondent no. 9 the petitioner will not be appointed unless the interse merit of the petitioner vis-a-vis Respondent no. 9 is again gone into by the Aam Sabha which will now reconsider the matter of appointment of Anganbari Sevika of the concerned Tola from amongst all the eligible candidates as on date. It goes without saying that the petitioner of course will also be given opportunity of being considered for her appointment. The Gram Sabha, however, will be under obligation to make the 4 selection in accordance with the government circular. Such exercise must be completed by the concerned Gram Sabha within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. With the aforementioned observation/direction this application is disposed of. (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.) Abhay Kumar