IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.18601 of 2009 1. RAM BILAS YADAV S/O LATE KOILI YADAV R/O VILL- DATTAROLL, P.S. PAKRIWARAWAN, DISTT. NAWADA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY DEPTT. OF WELFARE, PATNA 2. THE SECRETARY DEPTT. OF WELFARE, BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE DIRECTOR INTEGRATED CHILD DEVELOPMENT SCHEME, PATNA, BIHAR 4. THE COMMISSIONER MAGADH DIVISION, GAYA 5. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE NAWADA 6. THE DISTRICT PROGRAMME OFFICER CHILD DEVELOPMENT DEPTT., NAWADA COLLECTORIATE, NAWADA 7. THE CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME OFFICER PAKARIWARAAM, DISTT. NAWADA 8. THE MUKHIYA DATTAROLL GRAM PANCHAYAT, BLOCK- PAKRI WARAWAN, DISTT. NAWADA 9. THE PANCHAYAT SECRETARY DATTAROLL GRAM PANCHAYAT, BLOCK- PAKRI WARAWAN, DISTT. NAWADA 10. SMT. JANKI DEVI W/O YADUNANDAN PRASAD ANGANWARI SEVIKA ANGANWARI KENDRA-IV, GRAM PANCHAYAT DATTAROLL, P.O. & P.S. PAKARIWARAWAN, DISTT. NAWADA ----------- 02. 28.02.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner is stated to be a resident of village Gram Panchayat Dattaroll aggrieved by the selection of respondent no.10 as Anganwari Sewika, relying upon Clause- 8(b) of the guidelines for selection, but not an applicant himself for the post. He filed an application before the District Programme Officer that respondent no.10 had obtained appointment on a fake birth certificate. After hearing respondent no.10 her appointment was set aside by the District Programme Officer on 23.3.2009. Respondent no.10 preferred Appeal No. 128 (M) of 2 2009 before the Collector. On 8.09.2009 the Collector remanded the matter to the District Programme Officer to hold a proper inquiry into whether respondent no.10 had solemnized a second marriage or not. The District Programme Officer then passed the fresh order dated 13.10.2009 recording and finding that the petitioner had solemnized a second marriage. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the matter for enquiry was the fake birth certificate produced by respondent no.10 and not her second marriage. The District Magistrate should have had an enquiry conducted himself into the genuineness of the birth certificate rather than remanding the matter to the District Programme Officer, who has illegally recalled his own earlier order. Learned counsel for the State submits that the issue of second marriage of respondent no.10 was directly linked to the birth certificate produced by respondent no.10. The order dated 23.3.2009 notices the controversy in the birth certificate of the petitioner in context of the date of birth of her son Umesh Kumar. She explained that her Sister Shanti Devi was the natural mother of Umesh Kumar. After she was deceased, the petitioner married her Sister’s husband 3 Yadunandan Prasad. It was noticed that the name of the husband of the petitioner was mentioned as Muneshwar Yadav in the voters list of 1975. Voters list does not have a finality attached and is suggestive. In any event, the order dated 23.2.2009 does not dispute the death of Shanti Devi stated to be the first lawful wife of Yadunandan Prasad and natural mother of Umesh Kumar. There is no finding that Shanti Devi was not deceased. There is no finding that Shanti Devi did not gave birth to a son by name of Umesh Kumar. A report was called for from the C.D.P.O. who appears to have generally made oral enquiry from villagers, who gave him one version or another of the events. The conclusion that the petitioner was the only wife of Sri Yadunandan Prasad is therefore not sustainable. Who was Sri Muneshwar Yadav mentioned in the Voters list has not been considered. The District Magistrate in appeal made specific remand for an enquiry whether the petitioner was the second wife of Sri Yadunandan Prasad. The appellate authority also noticed the contradiction in the report of the C.D.P.O. On reconsideration of the matter after remand the District Programme Officer arrived at conclusion that the petitioner was the second wife of Yadunandan Prasad and Sri Umesh Kumar was her step son being the 4 progeny of Late Shanti Devi and thus the short age difference of four years between the petitioner and her step son Umesh Kumar. This short age difference was the ground to allege her birth certificate to be fake. In view of the infirmity contained in the original order dated 23.3.2009 itself, coupled with the fact that the whole issue involves complicated and disputed questions of facts which can be decided only by leading evidence including oral before a civil forum, the Court finds no merit in this writ application. The application is dismissed. P.K. ( Navin Sinha, J.)