IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14251 of 2011 Bibha Kumari wife of Raj Kishore Chaudhary, resident of Village- Haripur Tinkorma, Post Office-Haripur Kala, Police Station- Murliganj, District-Madhepura. ........Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. Principal Secretary, Department of Social Welfare Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Director Integrated Child Development Services, Department of Social Welfare, Government of Bihar, Patna. 4. The District Magistrate, Madhepura. 5. The District Programme Officer, Madhepura. ........Respondents ----------- 02 18.10.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. Petitioner is claiming a right for appointment on the post of supervisor from the quota of ‘Anganwari Sewikas’ on the basis of her name having appeared in Annexure-5. There is a 25% quota for ‘Anganwari Sewikas’ to be appointed on the post of ‘Parivichika’. Submission of the counsel is that despite her name having figured at Serial No. 7, others have been appointed but her claim has been ignored. Learned counsel for the State points out from Annexure-5 that the names figuring therein, are not according to the merit, but based on the names which had appeared in the earlier short listed list. All the so called persons whom the petitioner claims to have been wrongly appointed have much higher marks than the present petitioner which would be evident from bare perusal of the total marks given to all the appointed candidates under the B.C.-II category. 2 The basic premise based on which the case of discrimination has been made out by the petitioner false flat on a closer look at the so called merit list, as none of the persons who have appointed have lesser marks, then the petitioner. Petitioner has been wrongly advised with regard to her merit position merely because her name was at Serial No. 7 in Annexure-5. Appointment has been made on the merit position, on the total marks attained and not on the basis of the name appearing in Annexure-5. No case for direction upon the respondents is made out for appointment. The writ application stands dismissed being devoid of merit. Safik (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)