IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.1193 of 2010 RANJANA KUMARI, W/O SRI RAMESH MEHTA, R/O- VILLAGE- BAIJNATHPUR, P.S.- BIHARIGANJ, DISTRICT- MADHEPURA ………….Petitioner/Appellant Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR, THROUGH THE SECRETARY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 2. THE DIRECTOR SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, MADHEPURA, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 4. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, MADHEPURA. 5. THE DISTRICT WELFARE OFFICER, MADHEPURA. 6. THE CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME OFFICER, MADHEPURA 7. KAVITA KUMARI, W/O RAMESH PRASAD MEHTA, R/O- VILLAGE- BAIJNATHPUR, P.S.- BIHARIGANJ, DISTRICT- MADHEPURA ………Respondents/ Respondents ----------- 2. 05.07.2011 Heard Mrs. Mahashweta Chatterjee for the appellant, and Mr. R.R. Tiwari learned Assistant Counsel to AAG-12 for respondent nos. 1 to 6. This appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the High Court of the Judicature at Patna has been preferred by the petitioner of C.W.J.C. No. 524 of 2010, and is aggrieved by the order dated 25.6.2010, whereby the writ petition has been dismissed, and the appointment of respondent no.7 on the post of Anganwari Sevika, to the exclusion of the petitioner, has been upheld. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, It appears to us that, after following the selection process, respondent no.7 was appointed as Anganwari Sevika in Baijnathpur, ward no.1, Harijantola, district-Madhepura. The petitioner challenged the same by moving the learned District Magistrate, Madhepura, on the ground that the husband of respondent no. 7 was gainfully engaged within the meaning of rule 3 (Anga) of the Sewika/Sahayika Selection Guidelines 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Guidelines’). This Rule provides that the candidates whose relations of the kind mentioned therein are engaged in avocation or jobs mentioned therein shall not be considered for selection as Anganwari Sevika/ Anganwari Sahayika. The District Magistrate decided against the appellant herein leading to the writ petition which has been rejected on the ground that the husband of respondent no.7 is not engaged in any one of the avocations and/or job contemplated by rule 3 (Anga) of the Guidelines. We are agree with the findings of the learned Single Judge. There is a fatal flaw in the frame of the writ petition as well as the present appeal. Anganwari Sevika is selected by, and serves, the concerned Panchayat which has not been impleaded as a respondent. Every Panchayat is a separate legal entity as mandated by Section 11 (3) of the Bihar Gram Panchayat Raj, Act 2006. Neither the writ petition nor the appeal can proceed in the absence of the Panchayat. The appeal is dismissed. Fahad ( S.K. Katriar, J. ) ( Vikash Jain, J. )