IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.524 of 2010 1. RANJANA KUMARI W/O RAMESH MEHTA R/O VILL- BAIJNATHPUR, P.S. BIHARIGANJ, DISTT. MADHEPURA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR, THROUGH THE SECRETARY WELFARE DEPTT., GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE DIRECTOR SOCIAL WELFARE DEPTT., GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR SOCIAL WELFARE DEPTT., MADHEPURA, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 4. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE MADHEPURA 5. THE DISTRICT WELFARE OFFICER MADHEPURA 6. THE CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME OFFICER MADHEPURA 7. KABITA KUMARI W/O RAMESH PRASAD MEHTA R/O VILL- BAIJNATHPUR, P.S. BIHARIGANJ, DISTT. MADHEPURA ----------- 02/ 25.06.2010 Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel appearing for the State. Petitioner’s prayer is for quashing of the order contained in Memo No. 1103 dated 23.11.2009 passed by the District Magistrate, Madhepura. By the impugned order the objection filed by the petitioner assailing the selection of respondent no. 7 Kabita Kumari on the post of Anganwari Sevika has been rejected. For the post of Anganwari Sevika five candidates including the petitioner and Kabita Kumari (respondent no. 7) had applied. Candidature of other three persons were not found within the consideration zone because they did not fulfil the eligibility criteria. So far petitioner and respondent no. 7 are concerned, their cases were considered and - 2 - respondent no. 7 being most suitable candidate for the post, was selected. The petitioner filed her objection, which was enquired by the C.D.P.O. The C.D.P.O. in his report recommended for cancellation of the selection of respondent no. 7 stating that her husband is in a government job, as such her case should not have been considered, as per guideline 3(Ang). However, District Magistrate, Madhepura in compliance of the provision under the guideline, considered the report submitted by C.D.P.O., the objection filed by the petitioner, and also providing opportunity of hearing to the concerned persons, has rejected the complaint made by the petitioner, by passing the impugned order. The District Magistrate in his order has stated that the job of the husband of respondent no. 7 being contractual in nature, is not a government job. He is not getting his regular salary rather on the basis of his work load, he is being paid monthly honorarium. Such kind of job do not come within the purview of government job as mentioned under clause 3(Ang) of the guideline. I do not find any error in the impugned order as service of the husband of respondent no. 7 do not within the - 3 - criteria of such job as mentioned in clause 3(Ang) of the guideline. There is no illegality in the selection of respondent no. 7. This application is dismissed. DKS/ (Mridula Mishra, J.)