IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4306 of 2010 1. Sunaina Kumari W/O Ranjeet Kumar Mandal R/O Vill.- Marsanda, P.S.- Kursela, Distt.- Katihar Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Secretary Social Welfare Deptt. Govt. Of Bihar, Patna 3. The Director Social Welfare Deptt. Govt. Of Bihar, Patna 4. The Commissioner Purnea Division, Distt.- Purnea 5. The District Magistrate Katihar 6. The District Welfare Officer Katihar 7. The Child Development Project Officer Sameli-Block, Distt.- Katihar 8. Smt. Sweta Kumar W/O Mithilesh Kumar Mandal R/O Vill.- Marsanda, P.S.- Kursela, Distt.- Katihar ---------------------------------- For the Petitioner: Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Alok Kumar Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate ---------- 3. 02.09.2011 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State. Notice was issued to Respondent no. 8 on 25.10.2010. She is stated to have entered appearance through vakalatnama. None was present on her behalf when the matter was taken up on 30.8.2011.The Court therefore adjourned the matter suo motu to provide her one more opportunity to contest. Today also no one appears on her behalf. The writ petition was filed on 15.2.2010 after serving two copies in the office of the Advocate General. No counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State. The Court is not persuaded to accept any prayer for further adjournment for the purpose. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the District Magistrate dated 9.5.2008 and the consequent order dated 30.6.2008 unseating 2 her from the post of Anganwari Sevika on a challenge by Respondent no. 8 as affirmed in appeal by the Commissioner on 29.10.2009. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner belongs to the dominant caste in the area in which the appointment was to be made. Respondent no. 8 belonged to the backward caste. Under the guidelines for appointment of Anganwari Sevika, so long as a candidate from the Dominant Populace is available she has a preferential right to appointment. In absence of a candidate from the Dominant Populace the person from the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe has to be considered and in absence of whom can a backward caste candidate be considered. So long as a candidate from the Dominant Populace possessing the minimum required qualification is available such a candidate has to be appointed and the question of marks obtained by her vis a vis backward class candidate or other caste candidate is not relevant. Counsel for the State submits that Respondent no. 8 has been appointed on the premise that she possessed higher marks than the petitioner. A perusal of the guidelines for appointment of Anganwari Sevika framed in 2006 at Clause 6 (Ka) postulates that a person from the Dominant Populace having highest marks is required to be appointed. The different criteria of eligibility were Inter/Graduate/Post Graduate. In the event that a person from the Dominant Populace possessing the minimum eligibility qualification of Inter/Graduate/post Graduate is not available then only a person from the Scheduled Caste/ Scheduled Tribes has to be appointed failing which a candidate from the Backward caste may be considered. A merit list shall then be prepared in order of the marks to be granted under the guidelines. It is therefore apparent 3 that the guiding criterion is the availability of a candidate from the Dominant Populace fulfilling the minimum eligibility criteria. If more than one candidate is available from the dominant populace, their respective marks shall assume relevance for interse seniority. If no such candidate from the Dominant Populace is available then only a Scheduled Caste/Tribe or backward class candidate was to be considered. If a candidate from the Dominant Populace is available with the minimum educational qualification question of considering a candidate from the scheduled/castes/tribes or a backward category candidate simply does not arise much less the issue of other category candidate possessing higher marks was of any relevance. The impugned orders dated 9.5.2008, 30.6.2008 and 29.1`0.2009 are set aside. Any consequential orders naturally stand set aside. The respondents shall now proceed in accordance with law. The writ application is allowed. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)