IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.1408 of 2010 Sunita Kumari, wife of Kamlesh Choudhary, resident of Village Rupnarayanpur, Post Office Karnauti, Police Station Mahnar, District Vaishali ...(Petitioner)- Appellant Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. The Collector, Vaishali at Hajipur 3. The Child Development Project Officer, Mahnar, District Vaishali 4. The District Programme Officer, ICDS Project Mahnar, Vaishali at Hajipur 5. The Mukhia, Gram Panchayat Raj, Karnauti, Police Station Mahnar, District Vaishali 6. The Pachayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Raj, Karnauti, Police Station Mahnar, District Vaishali 7. Smt. Sita Kumari, wife of Harish Chandra Rai, resident of Village and Police Office Karnauti, Police Station Mahnar, District Vaishali 8. The Commissioner, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur ...(Respondents) -Respondents ----------- 02- 19/8/2011 Heard Mr. Shrawan Kumar for the appellant, and Mr. Vijay Kumar, learned Assistant Counsel to Standing Counsel no.V. This appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the High Court of Judicature of Patna has been preferred by the petitioner of CWJC No.1488 of 2010, and raises a grievance with respect to the order dated 29.7.2010, whereby her writ petition has been dismissed, and the order of respondent no.2 has been upheld, whereby respondent no.7 herein was appointed to the post of Anganwari Sevika. 2. A brief statement of facts essential for the disposal of this appeal may be indicated. Gram Panchayat Raj Karnauti, District – Vaishali, had conducted the selection process for appointment of Anganwari Sevika. Respondent no.7 had scored 71.2% marks and was at sl.no.1 of the merit list, whereas the appellant had scored 62% 2 marks. The Aam Sabha of the Gram Panchayat resolved to appoint respondent no.7 because she was at sl.no.1 of the merit list. For reasons not disclosed in the proceeding, the appellant herein was appointed inspite of the resolution of the Aam Sabha. Respondent no.7 challenged the same by filing an appropriate application before respondent no.2, which was allowed and the appointment of the appellant herein was set aside, and it was directed that respondent no.7 should be appointed. Aggrieved by this order, the appellant herein had preferred the appeal before respondent no.8, which was allowed, the order of respondent no.2 was set aside on the ground that the appellant herein was not heard, and the matter was remitted to respondent no.2 for a fresh decision in accordance with law after affording reasonable opportunity to the parties. Respondent no.2 re-heard the matter and rejected the application of the appellant herein by his order dated 22.8.2009, passed in Misc. Case no.09/09 (Sunita Kumari), and directed that respondent no.7 herein may be appointed in accordance with the resolution of the Aam Sabha of 31.12.08. 2.1) Aggrieved by the order of respondent no.2, the appellant herein preferred the present writ petition which has been rejected. Hence this appeal at the instance of the writ petitioner. 3. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. It appears that respondent no.7 herein was at sl.no.1 of the merit list prepared by the concerned Panchayat after following the selection procedure. The Aam Sabha had approved of the appointment of respondent no.7 in view of her position in the merit list at its meeting 3 held on 31.12.08. Considerable emphasis has been placed before us on behalf of the appellant that respondent no.7 was undoubtedly at sl.no.1 of the merit list, but could not have been appointed because of the two disqualifications she had incurred, namely, that her name did not appear in the Voters’ List, and that she is related to a Ward Member. 4. We have perused the entire materials on record including the writ proceedings and nowhere did we find that any objection was raised whether or not her name did appear in the Voters’ List, nor she was related to a Ward Member. These two issues cannot, therefore, be pointed out for the first time in the present appeal on the strength of affidavit filed before us. This part of the submission is rejected. In so far as the remaining grievance is concerned, the learned Single Judge has concluded thus :- “The District Magistrate rightly therefore proceeded to apply his mind afresh to the issues. The two grounds, respondent no.7 having higher marks and her father-in-law not being in a prohibited category of relationship, are facts not disputed by the petitioner.” 5. We, therefore, do not find any merit in this appeal. Respondent no.7 has been rightly appointed. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. ( S K Katriar,J. ) (Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.) mrl