IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13340 of 2011 Gayatri Kumari W/O Sri Birendra Kumar Singh R/O Vill.- Paleya, Ward No.-4, Nagar Panchayat, Makhdumpur, P.S.- Makhdumpur, Distt.- Jehanabad Versus 1. The State of Bihar through its Secretary, Welfare Department Govt. of Bihar, Patna 2. The Director, Integrated Child Development Services, Welfare Department, Govt. Of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna 3. The Commissioner, Magadh Division, Gaya 4. The Deputy Director Welfare, Magadh Division, Gaya 5. The Area Development Officer, Magadh Division, Gaya 6. The District Magistrate, Jehanabad 7. The District Program Officer, Jehanabad 8. The District Development Commissioner, Jehanabad 9. The Child Development Project Officer, Jehanabad 10. The Ward Member Nagar Panchayat, Makhdumpur 11. The Secretary, Nagar Panchayat, Makhdumpur 12. Smt. Nirma Devi W/O Sri Lalan Manjhi R/O Vill.- Paleya, Ward No.- 4, Nagar Panchayat, Makhdumpur, P.S.- Makhdumpur, Distt.- Jehanabad ----------- 02. 14.10.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. There is a clear and categorical finding given by the District Programme Officer duly affirmed by the appellate authority that selection of the petitioner has not been in consonance with the required laid down rules specially Rule 6(IV). The Aam Sabha did not have the requisite quorum when the selection was carried out in favour of the petitioner. There were only 60 signatories to the resolution when the required number should have been 78 i.e. 10%. This finding has not been in any manner dislodged at any point of time by any independent material. Submission of the counsel for the petitioner that 2 basically the discussions which have been made is with regard to selection of person for Ward No.4 and not for Ward No.3 to which petitioner was selected. This contention seems to be misplaced because the issue was selection of the petitioner, in which allegations were made in the manner in which such exercise was carried out in the so-called Aam Sabha without requisite quorum and on failure of the authorities to adhere to the laid down procedure the selection cannot be upheld or finding recorded in this regard cannot be interfered with. Writ has no merit. It is dismissed. rkp ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)