IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7468 of 2005 RUKMINEE KUMARI w/o Dilip Kumar R/o Village-Maksoodpur P.S-Tekari, Dist- Gaya…..petitioner. Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 2.Director Welfare, (Anganbari Scheme) Govt. of Bihar, Patna, Office New Secretariat, Patna 3.The District Magistrate, Gaya. 4.The Sub-Divisional Officer, Tekari, Dist-Gaya 5.The Child Development Project Officer(CDPO), Tekari, P.S.Tekari, Dist-Gaya 6.Sri Shiv Dutt Singh, Mukhiya of NONI Gram Panchayat, P.S.Tekari, Dist-Gaya 7.Mrs. Gulesh Sinha w/o Abhay Sharma R/0 Village-Maksoodpur, P.S-Tekari, Dist- Gaya……Respondents ----------- For petitioner:- Mr. Sudarshan Sharma, Adv Mr.Jai Prakash Sharma, Adv For State:-Mrs. Kalpana, JC to SC-22. ----------- 3/ 17.11.2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. Petitioner has claimed that she be selected and appointed on the post of Anganbari Sevika of Village-Maksoodpur, P.S- Tekari, Dist-Gaya because her family is below the poverty line as defined by policy decision of the State. According to the petitioner her rival Respondent No.7, Mrs Gulesh Sinha w/o Mr.Abhay Sharma has wrongly been selected and appointed as Anganbari Sevika of Maksoodpur because she belongs to a family which is above poverty line. In support of such allegation against Respondent No.7 petitioner has relied upon Annexure-3 and 4 to submit that mother-in- law of Respondent No.7 is a retired teacher of - 2 - a Government Primary School and her father-in- law is a postal peon and therefore the income of her family is well above Rs. 12,000/- per annum. Learned counsel for the State submits that there is no sufficient material to show how much is being earned by father-in-law and mother-in-law and husband of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the State has further submitted that it is not possible to include the income of mother-in-law and father-in-law in the income of family of Respondent No.7 who has an income certificate showing only an income of Rs.12,000/- per annum. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that according to some judgments of this Court in the case of Lalita Kumari V. State of Bihar and other analogous matters this Court held that under the new guidelines there is provision for appeal to the District Magistrate in respect of complaints relating to selection/removal of Anganbari Sevika and in view of such provision of appeal the matters were remitted to the concerned District Magistrate. Considering the nature of petitioner’s grievance and the aforesaid submission and the - 3 - judgment in the case of Lalita Kumari V. The State of Bihar reported in 2007 (4) PLJR 505 , the writ petition is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal in the matter before the District Magistrate, Gaya within a period of four weeks from today along a copy of this order. If such appeal is filed along with relevant documents, the District Magistrate, Gaya should get the grievance of the petitioner inquired and dispose of the appeal in accordance with law at an early date preferably within six months from the date of filing of the appeal. It will be open for the petitioner to raise her grievance that the selection is also contrary to Rule-3 (Da) of the Government policy decision contained in Annexure-3. perwez (Shiva Kirti Singh,J.)