IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No. 2890 of 2005 BIBHA KUMARI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 07. 18.03.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing for the State. No one appears on behalf of Respondent No. 9, though notice was duly served upon her. Petitioner’s grievance is that she was selected as Anganbari Sahayika for Anganbari Sahayika Kendra No. 29 vide Selection Letter No. 134, dated 17.09.2003. Despite her selection, she was not sent for training and this was the reason that she was not paid any honorarium, since it was to be paid from the date of her joining at Training Centre. The petitioner’s case is that subsequently her selection was cancelled by the Mukhiya and the C.D.P.O. without giving any notice to show-cause. The Respondents thereafter selected Anita Kumari, Respondent No. 9, as Anganbari Sahayika. Counter Affidavit has been filed on behalf of Respondent No. 6, the Child Development Project Officer, Khedawandpur, Begusarai. In this Counter Affidavit, it has been stated that complaints were 2 received regarding irregularities committed in the selection of the petitioner as Anganbari Sahayika. In this regard a general meeting was called on 15.12.2004 to examine the complaints regarding selection of Anganbari Sahayika of Centre No. 25, 26 and 29. The Aam Sabha was convened under the Chairmanship of Mukhiya of concerned Gram Panchayat and in presence of C.D.P.O., Khedawandpur. In course of enquiry, it was found that the selection of the petitioner for Centre No. 29 was not proper, since her candidature was improper and in contravention of the guidelines / regulation of the Department for selection of Anganbari Sahayika. A candidate selected for the post of Anganbari Sahayika must represent the majority caste of foster area. The Centre No. 29 comes within the Ward No. 3 and 4 and the majority caste of that area is Backward Caste. So far petitioner is concerned she being Yadav, was not representing majority caste. So far, Anita Devi, Respondent No. 9, is concerned she was given preference being a widow as under the guidelines, preference has to be given to a widow, representing the majority caste. For all these reasons, in the Aam Sabha, selection of the 3 petitioner was cancelled with majority vote. On that very date Respondent No. 9 was selected for the post. She was also sent for training and on completion of training she has been working at the concerned Centre as Anganbari Sahayika. Considering the statement in the Counter Affidavit, I do not find any merit in this Writ Application. Petitioner, as per own statement, was selected in the year 2003 and in case she was not being sent for training, she did not raise any objection till her candidature was cancelled by the competent authority and Respondent No. 9 was selected for that post. I do not find any merit in this Application. Accordingly, it is dismissed. SKM (Mridula Mishra, J.)