This judgment dismissed two writ petitions challenging Anganwari Sevika selection. The petitioner was held ineligible for residing in one ward while contesting in another, and lacked locus to challenge when higher-ranked candidates were not disqualified.
Writ petitions dismissed with direction to assail findings via appropriate legal remedy.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No 6078 of 2020
======================================================
Rina Devi wife of Prabhans Singh resident of Village- Chordihara, P.o.Haranathpur, P.s.- Mohania, District- Kaimur (Bhabhua)
... ... Petitioner/s
... ... Respondent/s
WITH
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No 23937 of 2019
======================================================
Priyanka Kumari @ Priyanka Devi wife of Alok Kumar Singh, resident of Tola- Chordihara, Village- Sarahula, Post office- Harnathpur, Police StationMohania, Block- Mohania, District- Kaimur (Bhabhua).
... ... Petitioner/s
Patna High Court CWJC No.6078 of 2020(13) dt.28-07-2022 2/5
Gram Panchayat- Baghini, Block- Mohania, District- Kaimur.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
| Appearance : (In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case |
No 6078 of 2020) |
|---|---|
| For the Petitioner/s : |
M/s Rajiv Kr Singh, Ramanuj Tiwary, Advocates |
| For the S t a t e : |
Mr Rajesh Kr, AC to GP 3 |
| For Respondent No 7 : |
Mr Shievendra Kishore, Sr Advocate with M/s Saroj Kr, Iti Suman, Advocates |
| (In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case | No 23937 of 2019) |
| For the Petitioner/s : |
Mr Shivendra Kishore, Sr Advocate with M/s Saroj Kumar, Iti Suman, Advocates |
| For the S t a t e : |
Mr Prashant Pratap, GP II Mr Sanjay Kr, AC to GP II |
| For Respondent No 12 : ===================== |
M/s Rajiv Kr, Ramanuj Tiwari, Advocates ================================= |
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD
ORAL ORDER
13 28-07-2022
CWJC No 6078 of 2020
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents.
The petitioner was one of the participants in the process of selection for Anganwari Sevika in Ward No 12.
The matter was heard earlier on various occasion and pursuant to an order passed by this Court on 10th of May 2022, an enquiry was got conducted regarding eligibility of the petitioner to contest the issue with regard to selection of Anganwari Sevika for the center in question.
Patna High Court CWJC No.6078 of 2020(13) dt.28-07-2022 3/5
A supplementary counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of Respondent No 5 wherein a Three Members Committee has conducted an enquiry regarding the petitioner’s eligibility under Clause 5 of the New Guidelines 2017 for Appointment of Anganwari Sevika and Sahayika (for brevity, 2017 Guidelines ) which reads as follows:
“ ernkrk ,oa fuoklh gksus dh ;ksX;rk %& vkaxuckM+h lsfodk@ lgkf;dk ds vH;FkhZ dks eSfiax iath ds vuq:Ik lacaf/kr okMZ dk fuoklh ,oa ernkrk gksuk vfuok;Z gksxk vFkok vkosfndk ds ifr@”olqj dk uke lacaf/kr okMZ dh ernkrk lwph esa vafdr gksuk vfuok;Z gksxkA ”
Mr Shivendra Kishore, learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was fulfilling the requirements in terms of Clause 5 of the 2017 Guidelines.
The findings by the District Magistrate as well as by the Three Members Committee are consistent, in so far as the conclusion is concerned, that though the petitioner is figuring in the electoral roll for Ward No 12, but she was not residing there and was residing at a place which falls in Ward No 11. 2017 Guidelines, relevant extract quoted above, is clear that the applicant or candidate is required to be a resident as well as an voter of the ward in question. Both the qualifications are not fulfilled by the petitioner, as per the documents.
Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that findings are baseless.
Patna High Court CWJC No.6078 of 2020(13) dt.28-07-2022 4/5
This Court would observe that till such time, the finding is not upset, the petitioner cannot claim to be eligible for selection in Ward No 12. The petitioner would be at liberty to assail the findings of the Three Members Committee in accordance with law.
This writ petition is devoid of merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.
CWJC No 23937 of 2019
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondents.
The petitioner has assailed the orders passed by the District Magistrate as well as the District Programme Officer, Bhabua in Revision Case No 26 of 2018 and Miscellaneous Case No 32 of 2018 respectively which have arisen out of selection process for selecting an Anganwari Sevika for Ward No 12 at Gram Panchayat – Baghini in the district of Bhabua. The petitioner, admittedly, as per Annexure 1, was the fifth empanelled candidate at the Aam Sabha. The orders, which have been assailed, arise out of a dispute between the persons who are placed at Serials No 1 to 3 and there is a dispute regarding their qualification for the process of selection in question. Specific query was made to the learned counsel for
Patna High Court CWJC No.6078 of 2020(13) dt.28-07-2022 5/5
the petitioner whether all the persons, mentioned above her in the merit list, have been disqualified. He has not placed any such finding by any authority. Since the petitioner was fifth empanelled candidate, and those above her are not disqualified, the petitioner has no locus to maintain this writ petition seeking her selection as Anganwari Sevika .
This writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
(Madhuresh Prasad, J)
M.E.H. /-
U
2 issues framed by the court
Whether petitioner is eligible for Anganwari Sevika selection given she resided in a different ward.
Whether petitioner has locus to challenge selection when those ranked higher were not disqualified.
Rina Devi
The State of Bihar
Priyanka Kumari
Madhuresh Prasad
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
