IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No. 4894 of 2005 RUBY DEVI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 03. 29.04.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. Counter Affidavits have been filed on behalf of Respondents, including Respondent No. 8, who is the real contestant in the present Writ Application. Petitioner’s claim is that she was selected for the post of Anganbari Sevika in respect to Centre No. 7, Thakur Singh Ka Darwaza in village Karamwa of Karamwa Raghunathpur Gram Panchayat. However, despite her selection, when she went to give her joining, she was not allowed by the Respondent No. 7 to join the post. She was also not sent for training, as required in case of a candidate selected for the post. Petitioner’s case is that there being only two applicants for the post of Anganbari Sevika for Centre No. 7. Petitioner was selected having higher qualification. Her selection was in consonance with the provisions mentioned in the guidelines. However, for the reason best known to Respondent No. 7, her selection was cancelled and Respondent No. 8, 2 having lesser qualification, was selected and allowed to join. Counter Affidavits have been filed on behalf of the State Respondents as well as private Respondent No. 8. From the Counter Affidavit filed on behalf of Respondent No. 8, it transpires that the Aam Sabha for selection of Anganbari Sevika and Anganbari Sahayika in respect of Centre No. 7 of Gram Panchayat Raj Karmawa Raghunathpur was held on 07.02.2004. There were two applicants, petitioner and Respondent No. 8. Majority population of Centre No. 7 belonged to Scheduled Caste and Respondent No. 8 represented majority population. As per the guidelines, for selection of Anganbari Sevika and Anganbari Sahayika, applicant, representing the majority population of that area should be preferred in the matters of selection. The applicant must be matriculate. In case of Scheduled Caste categories candidate, the criteria of qualification of being matriculate can be relaxed, if candidate with Matriculation qualification is not available. The applicant must be daughter-in-law of the area concerned and member of Aam Sabha have voted in 3 favour of the selected candidates. So far the petitioner is concerned, though she is matriculate and got higher qualification than the Respondent No. 8, but she did not represent the majority beneficiary population of the area, as majority population of Centre No. 7 belong to Scheduled Caste. Respondent No. 8 represented the majority population. The petitioner is not the daughter-in-law of that village, but daughter of that village, as such disqualified from being selected for the post. It is also stated in the Counter Affidavit that Respondent No. 8 was selected by the Aam Sabha, but arbitrarily her selection was not accepted by the CDPO and petitioner was shown to be selected for the post. Subsequently, the selection of the petitioner was recalled and Respondent No. 8 was selected for the post. The petitioner has not denied the statements made in the Counter Affidavit filed on behalf of Respondent No. 8. There is no denial to the fact that she is not the daughter-in-law of Centre No. 7, fulfilling essential criteria for being selected for the post of Anganbari Sevika. Considering the fact that the petitioner is the daughter of that area, she is disqualified for being 4 selected for the post. In the given facts and circumstances, I do find any illegality or error in case the Respondent No. 8 was selected for the post of Anganbari Sevika. The petitioner was rightly not treated as selected and allowed to give joining on the post. Finding no merit in this Writ Application, it is dismissed. SKM (Mridula Mishra, J.)