IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.21987 of 2011 ====================================================== Sunita Kumari, Daughter of Sri Deosharan Chaudhary and wife of Rabindra Kuar Singh, Resident of Narayanpur, P.S.-Kochas, District-Rohtas. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Commissioner, Patna Division, Patna. 2. The District Magistrate, Rohtas. 3. The Director, Social Welfare Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 4. The Child Development Project Officer, Kochas, Rohtas (Sasaram). 5. The District Programme Officer, Rohtas, Sasaram. 6. Gita Kumari @ Gita Devi, Wife of Shri Vija Singh, resident of village- Narayanpur, P.S.-Kochas, District-Rohtas. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ajit Kumar Singh, Advocate. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Rakesh Prabhat, A.C. to G.P. 19. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 2 13-12-2011 Feeling aggrieved by cancellation of her appointment as Anganbari Sevika, Gram-Narayanpur, P.S.-Kochas, District- Rohtas and the appointment of the respondent no. 6 as such, the writ petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. By order dated 1st October 2011 made by the District Magistrate, Rohtas, the District Magistrate recorded the finding that amongst the applicants, the respondent no. 6 was the first on the merit list and the petitioner was at Sl. No. 4 on the merit list. Nevertheless, on account of physical absence of the respondent no. 6 and two others, the petitioner, although she was at Sl. No. 4 on the merit list, was selected and appointed as Anganbari Sevika. Patna High Court CWJC No.21987 of 2011 (2) dt.13-12-2011 2 / 3 2 On the complaint made by the respondent no. 6, the District Magistrate has set aside the selection of the petitioner and has directed to appoint the respondent no. 6. The District Magistrate has held that under the relevant guidelines the physical presence of the applicants is not required. Learned Advocate Mr. Ajit Kumar Singh has appeared for the petitioner. He admits that under the relevant guidelines physical presence of the applicants in the Aam Sabha was not required. He has further submitted that one Reeta Devi, sister-in-law of the respondent no. 6 , is gainfully employed. The respondent no. 6, therefore, cannot be appointed as Anganbari Sevika. He has also submitted that at the relevant time there was no coram in the Aam Sabha. The Aam Sabha, therefore, could not have taken any decision in respect of the selection and appointment of the Anganbari Sevika. The reliance is placed on the Guidelines, 2006 issued in respect of selection and appointment of Anganbari Sevika and Anganbari Sahayika. Paragraph 3 of the said Guidelines deals with the ‘eligibility’. Clause (e) thereof imposes a bar on selection of a person whose relative such as daughter/wife/daughter-in- law/grand-daughter-in-law is employed in a Government or Semi- Government Organization. The next Clause (f) provides that Anganbari Sevika and Sahayika should not be inter related such as mother-in -law- daughter-in-law; sisters-in-law; sister; niece etc. It is evident that there is no bar on appointment of an Anganbari Sevika, if her sister-in-law is employed in a Government or in a Semi-Government organization. Patna High Court CWJC No.21987 of 2011 (2) dt.13-12-2011 3 / 3 3 As to the coram of the Aam Sabha, there is no finding that on the relevant day there was no coram in the Aam Sabha. No other contention is raised before me. The challenge to the selection and appointment of the respondent no. 6 as Anganbari Sevika of Narayanpur, P.S.-Kochas, District-Rohtas has no merit. Petition is summarily rejected. Sujit /- (R.M. Doshit, CJ)