IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12237 of 2010 ====================================================== 1. Nilam Devi W/O Sri Abhay Kumar Singh R/O Vill.+P.O.- Kishanpur, Baikhunth, P.S.- Warishnagar, Distt.- Samastipur .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar Through The Chief Secretary Govt. Of Bihar, Patna 2. The Commissioner, Darbhanga Division, Darbhanga 3. The District Magistrate, Samastipur 4. The C.D.P.O., Warishnagar, Samastipur 5. The B.D.O., Warishnagar, Samastipur 6. The District Programme Officer, Samastipur 7. The Panchayat Secretary, Basantpur Ramni Warishnagar, Distt.- Samastipur 8. The Mukhiya, Basantpur Ramni Panchayat Prakhand Warishnagar, Distt.- Samastipur .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Kumar Rajeev For the Respondent/s : Mr. (Ga9) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA) 3 25-11-2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner was appointed as an Angan Bari Sevika. On a challenge by one Neelam Devi, not impleaded as a party respondent in the writ petition, the District Magistrate on 15.11.2008 arrived at the conclusion that the petitioner’s husband being in government service she was ineligible for appointment. The contention of the petitioner is that she has separated from her husband, has filed a maintenance case Patna High Court CWJC No.12237 of 2010 (3) dt.25-11-2011 2 in which maintenance has also been awarded on 21.4.2010. Learned counsel for the State submits that the petitioner came to be selected on 10.10.2008 and was separated from her husband on 11.11.2008. The order of the Commissioner refers to an enquiry affirming that the petitioner was living with her husband at the relevant time. If on the date of appointment there is an enquiry report that she was living with her husband, any subsequent separation and grant of maintenance cannot lend validity in law to an appointment made earlier when she was not fulfilling the conditions. To that extent, the Court finds no reason to interfere with the order of the Court or the Commissioner. The petitioner was not a government servant rather an agent of the State Government. The contention that she was discharging her duties properly and there have been no allegations against her in that capacity, her utility for the respondents are matters to be more appropriately considered by the respondents themselves in all its aspects. The writ application stands disposed with the aforesaid observation. Krishna Chandra Jha/- (Navin Sinha, J)