IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11767 of 2004 Indu Kumari, Wife of Gulsan Kumar, Resident of Village-Gidarpur, P.S.- Hulasganj, District-Jehanabad. …………………….. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Commissioner and Secretary, Department of Social Welfare, Bihar Patna. 3. The Divisional Commissioner, Magadh Division, Gaya. 4. The District Magistrate, Jehanabad. 5. The Deputy Development Commissioner, Jehanabad. 6. The Block Development Officer Ghosi/Hulasganj, District-Jehanabad. 7. The Chilf Development Project Officer, Hulasganj Block Office, District- Jehanabad. 8. The Mukhiya, Bauri Gram Panchayat, P.S.-Hulasganj, District-Jehanabad. 9. Sangita Kumari, wife of Ravi Kant Kumar, resident of Village-Gidarpur, P.S.-Hulasganj, District-Jehanabad. ……………………. Respondents ----------- 2 9/11/2009 Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. Despite service of notice on respondent no.9 no one appears on her behalf. Prayer of the petitioner in this writ application reads as follows:- “That this is an application for issuance of appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions for quashing of resolution No.6 taken in a general meeting of Gram Panchayat for selection of Anganwari Sevika on 04.02.2004 since the aforesaid resolution has been passed without following the provisions as laid down in this behalf issued by the respondent authorities of Social Welfare Department, Bihar, Patna. The petitioner also prays for direction of this Hon‟ble Court to say the further procedure of appointment during the pendency 2 of this application.” With reference to the aforementioned relief counsel for the petitioner would submit that since in the counter affidavit only reason given for not selecting the petitioner in preference to respondent no.9 has been said to be that the petitioner was sister-in- law of a person having licensee of Public Distribution System and his Gotni is also working as Panchayat Siksha Mitra, the selection and appointment of Respondent no. 9 is fit to be set aside as none of those consideration could have led to rejection of the candidature of the petitioner on the relevant date. He has also in this context clarified his submission by adding that the restriction for not appointing any relative of a person engaged by way of dealer in Public Distribution System was introduced in the year, 2006 and consequently case of the petitioner ought to have been considered on the basis of existing norms of selection as was available on the date of selection, i.e, 4.2.2004. Counsel for the State, in fact, having already made statement in paragraph 4 of the counter to the following effect; „the candidature of the petitioner was rejected as her brother-in-law is a Public Distributor Dealer and her Gotani (Sister-in-law) is working as Panchayat Siksha Mitra‟, would not be in a position to justify non selection of the petitioner and appointment of respondent no.9 in preference to her. As noted above, neither counsel for respondent no.9 has appeared nor even counter affidavit has been filed on her behalf, even 3 though a Vakalatnama has been filed on her behalf on 7.2.2005. That being so, it becomes admitted that reason for non selection of the petitioner is either being related to her brother-in-law holding license of Public Distribution System or her gotni being Panchayat Siksha Mitra. Counsel for the State however could not justify such decision backed by government circular as on 4.2.2004. In that view of the matter, selection of respondent no.9 and her appointment is hereby set aside with a direction to the official respondents to undertake a fresh selection by applying procedure which is existing as on date. With the aforementioned observation/direction this application is disposed of. Abhay Kumar (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)