IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.19441 of 2011 1. Kumari Nilam Wife Of Shashi Kant Verma Resident Of Vill & P.O. - Dhanama, P.S. Chandradeep, Dist- Jamui Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. District Magistrate, Jamui 3. The Welfare Officer, Jamui 4. The Child Development Project Officer, Aliganj, Jamui 5. The Panchayat Secretary Gram Panchayat Saksohra, Dist- Jamui 6. Smt. Savitri Devi, The Mukhiya Saksohra Gram Panchayat , P.O.- Dhanama, P.S. - Chandradip, Dist- Jamui 7. Smt. Anita Kumari Wife Of Satish Kumar Aganwari Sevika At Newly Created Anganwari Centre, Saksohara, Gram Panchayat, Dist - Jamui ---------------------------------- 2 01/12/2011 Selection on the post of Angan Bari Sevika effected in the year 2007 became the subject matter of dispute and challenge which led to many rounds of litigation. In the present writ application annexure-8 has been challenged which is a decision of the Child Development Project Officer, Aliganj to invite fresh applications to fill up the post by way of a fresh exercise which has been termed or labeled as contrary to the direction issued by the District Magistrate in terms of annexure-6. Annexure-6 is the order of the District - 2 - Magistrate passed on the direction of the High Court issued in C.W.J.C. No. 1143 of 2008. Date of annexure-6 is 07.07.2011. The District Magistrate came to a considered opinion that appointment or selection of Anita Kumari who happened to be at serial no. 2 of the so called merit list and ignoring the claim of the present petitioner Kumari Nilam was bad in law because by the time petitioner became a claimant for appointment on the post of Angan Bari Sevika, her engagement under Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan was already over. Therefore, the reason for her non selection was extraneous. There is a direction in the concluding part of the order of the District Magistrate directing the Child Development Project Officer to convene an Aam Sabha for selection of Angan Bari Sevika but this is being read by the learned counsel for the petitioner or the petitioner to mean that the exercise or the ritual of such appointment has to be gone through only for the purpose of appointing the petitioner on the last post. Such a direction cannot be treated as an open offer for opening a Pandora box for fresh selection altogether. This submission of the learned counsel is based - 3 - on the so called provision of 2010 policy notified in May, 2010. In this new policy in clause 8(3) there is now a new provision with regard to giving direction for appointment of the second person standing in the merit list in case the appointment of the selected candidate is set aside. With due regards to the learned counsel for the petitioner, such a provision which has been introduced for the first time in the year 2010 will have prospective effect with regard to any selection carried out within the parameters of the new guidelines issued in the year 2010. Admittedly the selection of the petitioner which became the subject matter of challenge or dispute was based on 2006 policy when there was no provision for giving an opportunity to the second candidate in the merit list or vice versa in case the second candidate was selected illegally. If that be so, then what is required to be done is initiation of a fresh proceeding where petitioner may become a claimant but confining the exercise to the appointment of the petitioner alone is uncalled for in the given set of facts; more so when selection was carried out in the year 2007 and not in the year 2010 after - 4 - coming into effect of the new policy. No interference is warranted with annexure-8 which is the notice summoning Aam Sabha and the applications for fresh selection. This writ application being devoid of merit is dismissed. AMIN/ (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)