IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.973 of 2011 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 8353 of 2011 ====================================================== Prem Kumari, wife of Dinesh Yadav, resident of village + P.O.- Bhawanipur, P.S.-Gopalpur, District-Bhagalpur. .... .... Petitioner/Appellant Versus 1. The State of Bihar through its Secretary, Department of Rural Development, Government of Bihar. Patna. 2. The Director, Department of Rural Development, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Director, Panchayati Raj, Government of Bihar, Patna. 4. The Divisional Commissioner, Bhagalpur. 5. The District Magistrate, Bhagalpur. 6. The Deputy Development Commissioner, Bhagalpur Division, Bhagalpur. 7. The Block Development Officer, Block-Rangra Chowk, District- Bhagalpur. 8. The Block Education Extension Officer, Block-Rangra Chowk, District- Bhagalpur. 9. The Child Development Project Officer, Block-Rangra Chowk, District- Bhagalpur. 10. The Mukhia, Gram Panchayat Raj Bhawanipur, Block-Rangra Chowk, District-Bhagalpur. 11. The Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Raj, Bhawanipur, Block- Rangra Chowk, District-Bhagalpur. 12. Sangita Kumari, wife of Sanjay Bharti, resident of village + P.O.- Bhawanipur, P.S.-Gopalpur, District-Bhagalpur. .... .... Respondents/Respondents ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant : Mr. Pramod Mishra, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Anant Kumar, AC to AAG-2. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 5 01-08-2011 Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 11th May 2011 passed by the learned single Judge in above CWJC No. 8353 of 2011, the writ petitioner has preferred the present Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent. Patna High Court LPA No.973 of 2011 (5) dt.01-08-2011 2 According to the appellant, after following due procedure as envisaged by Paragraphs 5 & 6 of the Guidelines issued for selection of Anganbari Sevika and Anganbari Sahayika under the Integrated Child Development Project, the appellant was selected for the post of Anganbari Sevika. She was however, not sent for training. On the complaint made by the respondent no. 12, the Commissioner, Bhagalpur set aside the selection of the appellant and directed the respondent no. 12 Sangita Kumari to be appointed as Anganbari Sevika. The challenge to the said order before the learned single Judge has failed. Therefore, the present Appeal. It is not in dispute that the respondent no. 12 was better qualified than the appellant. Challenge to the appointment of the respondent no. 12 is that she is the daughter-in-law of a retired Government employee. The Commissioner, Bhagalpur held that kith and kin of a retired Government employee were not excluded from being appointed as Anganbari Sevika or Anganbari Sahayika. The respondent no. 12, therefore, had right to be selected and appointed as Anganbari Sevika, she being better qualified for the post. Learned advocate Mr. Pramod Mishra has appeared for the appellant. He has relied upon Paragraph 5 of the Guidelines. He has submitted that the relatives of various categories of persons receiving some benefit from the State Government have been excluded from being selected as Anganbari Sevika. A retired Government employee also receives pension from the Government. His relatives, therefore, cannot be appointed as Anganbari Sevika. Patna High Court LPA No.973 of 2011 (5) dt.01-08-2011 3 We do appreciate the submission made by Mr. Mishra. We may, however, note that the said Paragraph 5 specifically excludes the kith and kin of various categories of persons including the Government and Semi-Government servants. However, the relatives of the retired Government servants are not excluded either expressly or by implication. In absence of specific exclusion, the kith and kin of a retired Government employee cannot be excluded from consideration for appointment as Anganbari Sevika or Anganbari Sahayika. The respondent no. 12 admittedly having better qualification, the appellant could not have a better claim than the respondent no. 12. The Appeal is dismissed in limine. Sujit/- (R.M. Doshit, CJ) (Birendra Prasad Verma, J)