IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7562 of 2005 SAJAN KUMARI, WIFE OF RAMSARAN MAHTO RESIDENT OF VILLAGE – KARIYAPATTI, P.O. RUPAULI, BLOCK – LAKNOUR, DISTRICT – MADHUBANI. …………….. PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, MADHUBANI. 3. THE DISTRICT WELFARE OFFICER, MADHUBANI. 4. THE SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER, JHANJHARPUR. 5. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, LAKNOUR. 6. THE CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER, LAKNOUR. 7. THE MUKHIYA OF LAKNOUR EAST GRAM PANCHAYAT, P.O. RUPAULI, BLOCK – LAKNOUR, DISTRICT – MADHUBANI. 8. PUNAM KUMARI, WIFE OF SHIVSHANKAR PRASAD, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE – KARIYA PATTI, P.O. RUPOULI, BLOCK – LAKNOUR, DISTRICT – MADHUBANI. ……………… RESPONDENTS. ----------- 03/ 17.05.2011 Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel appearing for the State. Petitioner has challenged the selection of Respondent No. 8 on the post of Anganwari Sevika under Laknour East Panchayat Ward No. 2 Centre Code No. 49 in the district of Madhubani. Petitioner is claiming that she being the graduate and having higher marks was not selected and Respondent No. 8 only having Intermediate degree was selected for the post in violation of Govt. circular with regard to selection/appointment of Anganwari Sevika. Another ground taken by the petitioner while challenging the selection of Respondent No. 8 is that in the test examination 2 Respondent No. 8 was not present and mark sheet produced by Respondent NO. 8 at the time of selection was a forged document. Counter affidavit filed on behalf of Respondent No. 6 shows that the petitioner at the time of selection had not produced relevant documents. The minutes of the Ama Sabha recorded at the time of the selection of Anganwari Sevika is indicative of the fact that petitioner’s application was an incomplete application. Respondent No. 8 has also filed counter affidavit stating that since she belonged to the category below poverty line and possessed requisite qualification. Selection Committee finding her candidature fit for the post, got her selected. On consideration of the statements made in the counter affidavits, I do not find any reason to hold that selection of Respondent No. 8 to the post of Anganwari Sevika was in violation of the guidelines for selection of Anganwari Sevika. She fulfilled the requisite qualification and also belonged to the category of below poverty line; rightly she was 3 selected for the post. There is no merit in this application. It is dismissed. DKS/ (Mridula Mishra, J.)