IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5526 of 2008 SUNITA DEVI, WIFE OF SURYABALI SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KURASAN, P.S. BHABUA, DISTRICT KAIMUR AT BHABUA. ----- PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR, THROUGH THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, KAIMUR AT BHABUA. 2. DISTRICT PROGRAM OFFICER, KAIMUR AT BHABUA. 3. THE DISTRICT WELFARE OFFICER, KAIMUR AT BHABUA. 4. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, BLOCK CHAINPUR, KAIMUR AT BHABHUA. 5. THE BLOCK WELFARE OFFICER, BLOCK CHAINPUR, KAIMUR AT BHABUA. 6. THE CHILD DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, BLOCK CHAINPUR, KAIMUR AT BHABUA. 7. PANCHAYAT MUKHIYA OF VILLAGE PANCHAYAT KURASAN, DISTRICT KAIMUR AT BHABUA. ---- RESPONDENTS For the petitioner :- Mr. Tribhuwan Narayan, Advocate ----------- 2 13.5.2011 Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to correct the designation of respondent no. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing on behalf of the State. The petitioner claims that he was selected in the meeting of an ‘Aam Sabha’ in which the Chief Development Project Officer and the Mukhiya were present, as she comes within the mapping area and had the highest marks amongst all the candidates. After selection however, one Pratima Kumari was issued the letter of engagement as a Anganwari Sevika. The engagement of Pratima Kumari was challenged before the District Magistrate, Kaimur at Bhabua who disposed of the matter by passing a reasoned order contained in Annexure-5. Annexure-5 would indicate that the proceedings of the ‘Aam Sabha’ were not produced by the Mukhiya and that he has 2 given a false statement indicating that no proceedings in fact were drawn and that the petitioner was out side the mapping area. In the circumstances as mentioned in Annexure-5, this Court finds that there can be no justification for the District Magistrate, Kaimur at Bhabua to come to the conclusion that there was no proceeding as it would be necessarily mean that even the appointment of Pratima Kumari could not have been made in the ‘Aam Sabha’ as it was not held. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that till date there has not been a fresh selection of ‘Anganwari Sevika’ although the order for fresh selection was made on 25.9.2007. I find that the Child Development Project Officer and the then District Magistrate are acting contrary to the guidelines as laid down by the Supreme Court. I direct that a fresh selection should be made within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The petitioner would be entitled to apply for the post of ‘Aganwari Sevika’ considering the fact that the District Magistrate’s findings on the basis of the oral statement of the Mukhiya that she does not come within the mapping area where the centre is situated cannot be relied upon or believed. This writ application is disposed of with the aforesaid directions. Sanjay ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)