IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10003 of 2011 Premlata Devi WIFE OF SRI ARBIND CHAUDHARY RESIDENT OF BADI KHAJURI, P.S. SHAMBHUGANJ, DISTRICT BANKA Versus 1. The State Of Bihar THROUGH DIRECTOR I.C.D.S., BIHAR, PATNA. 2. THE COMMISSIONER, BHAGALPUR DIVISION, BHAGALPUR. 3. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, BANKA. 4. THE DISTRICT WELFARE OFFICE, BANKA. 5. THE CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER, SHAMBHUGANJ, DISTRICT BANKA. 6. THE MUKHIYA REAMCHUA GRAM PANCHAYAT, P.S. SHAMBHUGANJ, DISTRICT BANKA 7. PREMLATA KUMARI WIFE OF SRI DILIP KUMAR SINGH RESIDENT OF BEDI KHAJURI, P.S. SHAMBHUGANJ, DISTRICT BANKA. ---------------------------------- 2 08/09/2011 Annexure-3 is the order which has been passed by the District Magistrate, Banka in terms of an earlier direction of this Court passed in C.W.J.C. No. 1545 of 2005. Petitioner was the person who was selected as an Angan Bari Sevika in Khajuri Panchayat, Shambhuganj in the district of Banka. This selection was supposed to be made in the Aam Sabha called on 24.08.2004. Selection of the petitioner did not come down well with some other candidates and, therefore, dispute was raised whether appointment or selection of the petitioner was in - 2 - accordance with the guidelines issued by the Welfare Department or not. Parties were heard including the petitioner. Admitted position is that the petitioner belongs to a forward caste and in three surveys or mapping exercise which were carried out for the Centre in question it was found that the Centre was populated by backward caste which was the dominant caste. Since there is a policy of the Welfare Department well in place vide letter no. 1129 dated 13.06.1998 that the Angan Bari Sevika will be selected from the dominant caste of that area, therefore, the selection, even if it was made by the Aam Sabha, of the petitioner was held to be bad by the District Magistrate. It is evident from the order of the District Magistrate that three exercises were carried out to confirm the population ratio and the constitution of the Centre in question and several times this dominant fact emerged in the enquiry. It is in this background that the District Magistrate has held that the selection of the petitioner was in violation of clause 5(6) of the letter dated 13.06.1998 of the Welfare Department. Learned counsel representing the petitioner - 3 - thereafter contends that in the Aam Sabha which was held, she was one of the candidates who offered herself for selection and she being found the best candidate was appointed as Angan Bari Sevika and after so many years, she cannot be removed by virtue of this order. Right of the petitioner for selection or appointment will have to be in terms of the guidelines. If the Aam Sabha had committed abrasion or illegality by giving an opening to the petitioner who does not belong to the dominant caste of the Centre, then Aam Sabha, obviously, did not conduct its business of selection in a fair and legal manner. Since there is no material and evidence to show that the Centre in question is dominated by forward caste or community, then selection, even if it was by the Aam Sabha, will have to be set aside being contrary to the guidelines and policy which has a purpose and objectivity behind selection of a person of a dominant caste or community of the area. There is no error in the finding of the District Magistrate and thereafter even order of affirmance passed by the Divisional Commissioner. - 4 - This writ application has no merit. It is dismissed. AMIN/ (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)