IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.17555 of 2009 1. SMT.POONAM DEVI W/O BATENDRA SINGH VILL GARIGAMA, P.S. &ANCHAL SARAIYA, DISTT-MUZAFFARPUR Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. COMMISSIONER-CUM-SECRETARY SOCIAL &WELFARE DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. DIRECTOR , I.C.D.S.DEPARTMENT GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 4. COMMISSIONER TIRHUT DIVISION, MUZAFFARPUR 5. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE DISTT-MUZAFFARPUR 6. DISTRICT WELFARE -CUM -PROGRAMME OFFICER DISTT- MUZAFFARPUR 7. CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER SARAIYA SUB DIVISION, MUZAFFARPUR(WEST)DISTT-MUZAFFARPUR ----------- 2. 24.2.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner was appointed as an Anganwari Sewika at Centre No. 8 from the general category. Allegations were made of a wrong appointment against a reserved vacancy leading to the cancellation of her appointment by the District Magistrate on 21.8.2007 on that ground and additionally that she had secured appointment on basis of the B.P.L. serial number of another person and that there was certain overwriting and cutting in the selection letter. The matter was carried in appeal before the Commissioner who on 13.4.2009 has upheld the former order. Learned counsel for the petitioner is right in his submission from the cause shown by the petitioner and the order of the Commissioner that the name of the 2 person from the B.P.L. list furnished by the petitioner was not for an outsider but her own brother-in-law, a member of the same family. The defence is that the declaration of a B.P.L. status holder was obtained from the family in the name of the brother-in-law. However, the Government letter dated 26.5.2004 at Annexure-2, relied upon by the petitioner to submit that in absence of a scheduled caste/scheduled tribe candidate, her appointment was justified, does not satisfy this Court. The notification provides an order of seniority. If the selection was reserved for a minority candidate and no such candidate was available, the next person to be considered was a scheduled caste/scheduled tribe. If the scheduled caste/scheduled tribe was not available or ineligible then a person from the extremely backward category was to be considered and only in the event of non availability or non eligibility of the same would a person from the general category be considered. It appears that this factual aspect has not been asserted by the petitioner either in the show cause or before the authorities. This Court cannot permit the petitioner to raise new facts in the writ petition. In any event of the matter, there is no factual foundation for the same in the pleadings. 3 In exercise of its powers of judicial review, this Court is primarily concerned with the correctness of the decision making process rather than the merits of the matter which may engage the attention of the Court only if the findings are contrary to the records, perverse, suffer from patent illegality etc., such is not the case presently. The petitioner has been given a full opportunity, her show cause has been considered, she has had her turn before the appellate authority also. There is no merit in this application and it is accordingly dismissed. P. Kumar (Navin Sinha, J.)