IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.49972 of 2007 1. KUMUD DEVI wife of Radha Mohan Singh, resident of Babhnaul, P. S. Dawath, District- Rohtas, presently Mukhia, Gram Panchayat, Babhnaul. 2. Kedar Ram, Panchayat Sewak, Dawath Prakhand, District- Rohtas. .. Petitioners. Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. Sabiur Rahman @ Laltu Son of Moquitur Rahman, Resident of village/ P.O.- Babhnaul, P. S. Dawath, District- Rohtas. .. Complainant, opposite parties. ----------- 3. 30.03.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for opposite party no. 2. All said and done, the grievance of opposite party no. 2, complainant was on account of her non- selection on the post of Anganwari Sevika. The allegation was based on her hope and expectation that since she had higher marks amongst all the candidates under zone of consideration but even then she was not appointed, only because she had allegedly failed to fulfil the demand of illegal gratification of Mukhia, Child Development Project Officer, as also Panchayat Sewak. Counsel for the petitioners in this context explains that true it is, complainant, opposite party no. 2 had higher marks amongst the candidates but then she did not belong to the category of majority of the people from which the post had to be filled up. He also explains that 2 the procedure prescribed by the circular of the State Government in this respect laying down the norms of selection and appointment on the post of Anganwari Sevika was followed in letter and spirit and that if the complainant had any grievance, there was also a forum, being the Collector of the District wherein she could have get her grievance resolved through the mechanism provided by the State Government in the guidelines relating to selection and appointment on the post of Anganwari Sevika. Taking aforementioned facts and circumstances into consideration and specially the fact that the complainant was not eligible for appointment, the corresponding allegation made by her against the petitioners and other public functionaries with regard to discharge of their official duties was definitely protected in terms of Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. That apart, once this fact becomes to forefront that the complainant was not qualified to be appointed in view of the circular of the State Government on the subject of appointment on the post of Anganwari Sevika 3 even the allegation of demand of illegal gratification must pale into insignificance and would in fact touch the limits of absurdity. The appointment of the complainant was nowhere possible and therefore the demand of illegal gratification by the petitioners and others on the face of record appears to be a figment of imagination of opposite party no. 2. Thus, this court taking the allegation made in the complaint to be inherently improbable would quash the entire proceedings including the order taking cognizance in the concerned complaint case. This application is accordingly allowed. Kanchan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)