IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7862 of 2003 SMT. SADHANA KUMARI wife of Sri Nitish Kumar, resident of village Barhkurba, P.S. Cheriya Bariyarpur, District Begusrai. Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR 2.The Director, Social Welfare Department, Government of Bihar, I.C.D.S. Directorate, Indira Bhawan, 2nd Floor Ram Charitra Singh Path, Patna. 3.The Collector, Begusrai. 4.The District Welfare Officer, Begusrai. 5.The Sub-Divisional Officer, Manjhaul, Begusrai. 6.The Children Development Project Officer, Cheriya Bariyarpur Block, District Begusrai. 7.Inspector, Children Development Project, Cheriya Bariyarpur, Begusrai. 8.Smt. Hira Kumari wife of Ram Nandan Mahto, resident of Village-Barhkurba, P.S. Cheriya Bariyarpur, District-Begusrai. ----------- 4 14/12/2009 Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. Prayer of the petitioner in this writ application reads as follows:- “That this is application for issuance of an appropriate writ, order/orders, direction and directions for quashing the office order contained in letter no.9/I.C.D.S-183/2002 dated 9.7.2003 passed by the Respondent no.2 by which he has cancelled the selection of petitioner as Angan Bari Sevika, Centre No.73, Ward No.5, Panchayat Bikrampur, Barkurba, District Begusrai, completely ignoring the enquiry report dated 25.1.2001 and 10.7.2001, inspected by the Inspector (Respondent No.7) and the Children Development Project Officer (Respondent no.6), Cheriya Bariyarpur, District- Begusrai, as well as the Report of the Local Mukhiya and Ward member.” 2 It appears that during pendency of this writ application an amendment petition was filed wherein paragraph 1 as also some other paragraphs were sought to be amended. No order, however, has been passed on such amendment petition. Considering the fact that such amendments are only clarificatory/explanatory in nature, the same is allowed to be incorporated in the writ petition. The long and short of this case is only to the extent as to whether the petitioner, a married daughter of the village, who was married to one Nitish Kumar and thus become a BAHU (daughter-in-law of the village of Nitish Kumar), could still claim appointment on the post of Anganbari Sevika in the village of her own natural parents. The case of the petitioner is that since there was some misunderstanding or differences with her husband on account of which she had purchased a piece of land in her own village (i.e. in her naihar), she must be deemed to be permanent resident of such village and as such also eligible for the post of Anganbari Sevika. Counsel for the petitioner in this context has referred to certain provisions of the circular of the State Government on the subject which would be referred to at appropriate place. Counsel for the State, on the other hand, would submit that this is a beneficiary scheme under which a person of the lowest status of the village has to be 3 represented and that is how it was envisaged that only the daughter-in-law who is permanent resident of the village of her husband would be eligible for selection and appointment on the post of Anganbari Sevika. He has also gone to explain that the moment the petitioner was married to the aforementioned Nitish Kumar she for the purpose of being considered on the post of Anganbari Sevika will have no claim at least in the village of her father and therefore even if she had purchased a piece of land in her father's village that will not mean that the petitioner will qualify for being considered for the post of Anganbari Sevika. In the opinion of this Court, the entire thing would depend on the scheme framed by the State Government. Such scheme as it was prevalent on 13th June, 1998 and was in vogue at the time of initial selection of the petitioner had contained the following relevant provisions: “Hkkjr ljdkj }kjk fu/kkZfjr ih0 vkbZ0 ,l0 @Iyku Qkj bUVkszZMDlu vkQ lfoZlst @ ds vkyksd esa cky fodkl ifj;kstuk inkf/kdkjh ,oa efgyk Ik;Zosf{kdkvksa }kjk loZizFke iz[kaM@ifj;kstuk {ks= dh eSfiax dh tk; rkfd ;g Kkr gks lds fd fu/kkZfjr eki n.Mksa ds vuqlkj fdu fdu Vksyksa ;k xkaoksa esa xjhch js[kk ls uhps jgus okyksa esa lcls vf/kd xjhc vkSj detksj oxZ ds yksx fuokl djrs gSa] ftuds yksxksa ds iks"k.k vkSj lkekftd Lrj dks mij mBkus dh vko’drk gS vkSj fdu fdu LFkkuksa ij vkaxuckM+h dsUnz LFkkfir fd;s tkus vko’;d gS A” “vkaxuckM+h lsfodk%& 4 1&vkaxuckM+h lsfodk dh U;wure ”S{kf.kd ;ksX;rk izosf”dk mRrhZ.k gS A flQZ vuqlwfpr tkfr@vuqlwfpr tutkfr dh lsfodkvksa ds fy;s U;wure ;ksX;rk izosf”dk vuqrhZ.k gS A ijUrq lq;ksX; Js.kh dh vf/kdre ”S{kf.kd ;ksX;rk okys mEehnokj dks izkFkfedrk nh tk;xh A ijUrq tgka ftyk inkf/kdkjh@mi fodkl vk;qDr ;g eglwl djsa fd viokn Lo:Ik fdlh ekeys esa ykHkfUor oxZ dh fu/kkZfjr ”S{kf.kd ;ksX;rk dh efgyk ugha fey jgh gS] rks ml fLFkfr esa funsZ”d lekt dY;k.k dk fyf[kr vkns” izkIr dj ”S{kf.kd ;ksX;rk esa NwV th tk;sxh A 2&vkaxuckM+h lsfodk dh mez U;wure 18 o"kZ rFkk vf/kdre 40 o"kZ gksxh A 3&vkaxuckM+h lsfodk ml xkao dh LFkk;h fuoklh gksuh pkfg,] ftl xkao esa vkaxuckM+h dsUnz vofLFkr gks A ;fn vkaxuckM+h dsUnz fdlh xkao ds Vksysa esa vofLFkr gks rks mls mlh Vksys dk fuoklh gksuk pkfg,] rFkk ykHkkfUorksa ds chp ls gh gksuh pkfg, A 4&vkaxuckM+h lsfodk xkao@Vksys dh cgw gksuh pkfg, A dqaokjh yM+fd;ksa dk p;u bl in ds fy;s ugha fd;k tk;sxk A 5&leku ;ksX;rk jgus ij laoaf/kr oxZ dh fo/kok@ifjR;Drk dks izkFkfedrk nh tk;sxh A 6&vkaxuckM+h lsfodk iz’uxr dsUnz ds ykHkkfUorksa dh mlh oxZ dh gksuh pkfg, ftldk ml vkaxuckM+h dsUnz ds ykHkkfUorksa esa ckgqY; gks A 7&vkaxuckM+h dsUnzksa ds ykHkkfUorksa ds okgqY; ckys oxZ esa fu/kkZfjr ”S{kf.kd ;ksX;rk ds mEehnokjksa dh vuqiyC/krk dh fLFkfr esa lsfodk@lgkf;dk dk p;u fuEu vxzrk ls fd;k tk;sxk& d&vuqlwfpr tkfr@vuqlwfpr tutkfr] [k&vR;Ur fiNM+k oxZ] Xk&fiNM+k oxZ] /k&vYi la[;d] M&lkekU; oxZ A 8&vkaxuckM+h lsfodk ds :Ik es p;fur gksus okyh efgyk dks ”kjhfjd ,oa ekufld :Ik ls LoLFk gksuk pkfg;s ,oa mls dksbZ Nwr dh chekjh ugha gksuh pkfg;s A” From reading of the aforementioned scheme two things are very clear, namely, it is only for a married lady, 5 or a widow or even abandoned by her husband, who alone would qualify for the post of Anganbari Sevika. It is in this context that the policy of the government completely prohibits the appointment of any unmarried lady on the aforesaid post. The second aspect which is still important is that such selection has to be made from amongst the people who are in majority and that too by way of permanent residents. A daughter, the moment she is married, under compulsion, changes her domicile and therefore become ineligible for appointment on the post of Anganbari Sevika in her naiher. This also becomes clear from the fact that there is a specific provision that the Anganbari Sevika should be only BAHU (daughter-in-law) of the village/Mohalla/Tola. It is in this regard that one would find the petitioner is disqualified as the petitioner was not BAHU of the locality and as such her either purchasing of land or any settlement with the husband will not make her eligible for appointment on the post of Anganbari Sevika in terms of the policy decision of the State Government. That being so, this application is wholly misconceived and is accordingly dismissed. Abhay Kumar (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)