IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2178 of 2009 VIRABHA KUER @ VIRAMBHA KUER Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- For the petitioner: Mr.Nagendra Dubey, Mr. Rajesh Kumar Pathak, Advocates For the State : Mr. Ranjan Kumar, AC to AAG –IX ---- 2 17-2-2009 This application has been filed for quashing the order dated 14th September, 2007 (Annexure -6) passed by respondent no.4 the District Magistrate, Kaimur, whereby the petitioner’s engagement as Anganbari Sewika has been cancelled. Further prayer made by the petitioner is to quash the order dated 12th August, 2008 passed by the Divisional Commissioner in Miscellaneous Appeal No.578 of 2007 (Annexure -8), whereby the appeal preferred against the aforesaid order has been dismissed. Short facts giving rise to the present application are that the petitioner as also one Binda Singh were candidates for appointment as Sewika. Petitioner had secured 58.43% marks in the matriculation examination whereas said Binda Singh had obtained - 2 - 84% marks. Appointment of the petitioner was questioned before the District Magistrate. The District Magistrate found that petitioner’s appointment was not inconformity with the circular governing appointment of Sewika and, accordingly, rescinded her appointment and directed to make appointment after following the procedure. The petitioner aggrieved by the same, preferred appeal before the Divisional Commissioner, who concurred with the finding of the District Magistrate and dismissed the appeal. Mr. Rajesh Kumar Pathak, does not dispute that the petitioner had secured 58.43% marks in the matriculation examination and Binda Devi 84% marks and both of them belong to the General Category. He also does not dispute that marks obtained in the matriculation examination is the governing factor for selection. However, he contends that said Binda Singh being the sister-in-law (Gotni) of the Mukhiya, was not fit to be considered for appointment to the post of Sewika. In this connection, he has drawn my attention to paragraph 3 (Mz) of the Guidelines of the year 2006. Same reads as follows: “yksd lsodksa ( eqf[k;k, iapk;r lfefr ds - 3 - lnL;/ okMZ lnL; / ftyk ifj"kn ds lnL; vkfn Lo;a ;k muds fj’rsnkj ), fofHkUu ljdkjh lkefxz;ksa ds fodzsrkvksa ( tSls tu forj.k iz.kkyh fodzsrk, /kqeUrq fdjklu rsy ds fodzsrk (Dealer), vUrjfoHkkxh; Mkd[kkuk dehZ (Intra- departmental Post Office Employee bR;kfn ) ljdkjh ,oa v)Zljdkjh lsodks ds fj’rsnkj ;Fkk, csVh/ iRuh/ iq+=o/kw dk p;u bl in ds fy, ugha fd;k tk;sxk /” I do not find any substance in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner. In my opinion, the aforesaid clause prohibits appointment of relations i.e., daughter, wife, daughter-in- law as Sewika. According to the petitioner’s own showing Binda Singh who had secured higher percentage of marks than the petitioner is the sister-in-law (Gotni) of the Mukhiya. I do not find any merit in this application and it is dismissed in limine. Neyaz/- C. K. Prasad, ACJ.