Skip to content

The research platform for Indian law — judgements, legislation and the citations between them. Free to search, with the original document behind every result.

A product of LawSathi.

Research

Search Legislation Research tools

Browse

Courts Case types Topics Most-cited judgements Sources

LawSathi

Practice platform Blog

© 2026 LawSathiTerms PrivacyResearch aid, not the official record.

Rima Kumari Vs The State of Bihar — Service and Employment | Patna HC (2023)

Home
Patna HC
2023
Rima Kumari Vs The State of BiharRima Kumari v. The State of Bihar

Dismissed

Rima Kumari v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC25 Apr 2023CWJC/1003/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking certiorari and mandamus against the selection of a rival candidate for Aanganwari Sevika post.

What did the court decide?

Writs of certiorari and mandamus dismissed; impugned orders are affirmed.

What the court decided

AI extract

A

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1003 of 2023

======================================================

Rima Kumari, Wife of Rajendra Sah, Resident of Village- Siripur, Ward No.02, Mahjid Tola, P.S. and Block- Cheriya Bariyarpur, District- Begusarai.

... ... Petitioner

Versus

The State of Bihar through the Principle Secretary, Department of Child Welfare and Development, Patna.

The Director, Integrated Child Development Service, Bihar, Patna.

The District Collector, Begusarai.

The Divisional Commissioner, Munger.

The District Programme Officer (I.C.D.S.), Begusarai.

The Child Welfare Development Officer, Cheriya Bariyarpur, Block at Begusarai.

Issues for consideration

3 issues framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the government can disqualify a candidate for the post of Anganwari Sevika based on the income of her husband under Paragraph 6 of the 2019 Guidelines.
2.
Whether the Divisional Commissioner correctly interpreted Paragraph 6 of the 2019 Guidelines regarding income eligibility for Aanganwari Sevika selection.
3.
Whether the government revenue-secretes para-6 of the guidelines is discretionary in nature.

Parties & counsel

AI extract

petitioner
Rima Kumari
respondent
State of Bihar through the Principle Secretary, Department of Child Welfare and Development, Patna
respondent
Director, Integrated Child Development Service, Bihar, Patna
respondent
District Collector, Begusarai
respondent
Divisional Commissioner, Munger

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Patna HC
Decided on: 25 Apr 2023 · April
Registered: 20 Jan 2023
Case no.: CWJC/1003/2023

Similar cases

Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from Rajeev Ranjan Prasad

Jag Narayan Ojha Vs The State of Bihar
24 Apr 2023
Ranjan Prasad Samayar, Vs The State of Bihar
24 Apr 2023
Pankaj Kumar Yadav Vs The State of Bihar
24 Apr 2023
Maharudra Jha Vs The State of Bihar
25 Apr 2023

Cite this judgement

Rima Kumari v. The State of Bihar, CWJC/1003/2023 (PAT), decided on 25 April 2023.

The Patna High Court publishes no neutral citation for this judgement — cite it by case number and date of decision.

Bench / Coram

Rajeev Ranjan Prasad

Parties & counsel

Outcome

Writs of certiorari and mandamus dismissed; impugned orders are affirmed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the government can disqualify a candidate for the post of Anganwari Sevika based on the income of her husband under Paragraph 6 of the 2019 Guidelines. +2 more

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Court held that Paragraph 6 of the 2019 Guidelines refers to the applicant's own income, not that of her husband. Since the contested guidelines of 2012 were replaced by those of 2019, the petitioner's claim to add the husband's income to disqualify the respondent is rejected.

A compact analysis

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.

The Women Supervision (Secretary) Aanganwari Selection Committee, Child Welfare Development Office, Block Cheriya Bariyarpur, DistrictBegusarai.

Masusma Pravin, Wife of Md. Imran Resident of Village- Sripur, Ward No.02, Panchayat Sripur, P.S.- Cheriya Bariyarpur, District- Begusarai.

... ... Respondents

======================================================

Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sabal Kumar Jha, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Prasant Pratap, GP-2 Mr. Gyan Shankar, AC to GP-2

======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL ORDER

2 25-04-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

counsel for the State.

2. Petitioner in the present case is seeking the following reliefs:-

“I. A nature of certiorari setting aside the order dated 12.11.2022 as contained in Annexure 6 passed by the respondent Divisional Commissioner, Munger in connection with Aanganwari service appeal No. 10/21, whereby and where under selected the candidature of private respondent ignoring the paragraph No. 6 of Guideline

Patna High Court CWJC No.1003 of 2023(2) dt.25-04-2023

2/5

2019 in which the annual income of husband of the private respondent is Rs.80,000/- has filed in application form while in guideline 2019 paragraph 6. It is mentioned the income of the candidate is not more than 12,000/- and also affirm the order dated 20.9.19 in connection with case No. 1/2019 passed by the respondent C.D.P.O. Cheriya Bariyarpur, Begusarai alongwith the order dated 19.2.21 in connection with case No. 30/19 passed by the District Programme Office (I.C.D.S.), Begusarai.

II. A nature of mandamus commanding and directing to the respondents concern to select the petitioner on the post of Aanganwari Sevika extreme at center No. 130 Panchayat Sripur Ward No. 02 as the income of the husband of the petitioner is Rs.85,000/amount. Where as the private respondent’s husband is a guest teacher and his income more than 2 lakh and the private respondent has canceling the income of the husband and shown Rs.80,000/- amount in the application of Recruitment form.

III. For that any other writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions for which the petitioner is found to be entitled in the facts and circumstances of this case.”

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned order on the grounds inter alia that the Commissioner, Munger Division has wrongly construed paragraph ‘6’ of the Guidelines of 2019 for selection of Anganbari Sevika. It is submitted that according to paragraph ‘6’ of the guidelines, the applicant whose income is Rs. 12,000/- or more than that, public representatives/dealer of the concerned Block shall be ineligible for selection as Anganbari Sevika. The Commissioner, Munger

Patna High Court CWJC No.1003 of 2023(2) dt.25-04-2023 3/5

has taken a view that paragraph ‘6’ of the guideline has been wrongly framed as according to him, the income of Rs. 12,000/referred in paragraph ‘6’ is to be read as income of the husband of the applicant and not of the applicant. The reasoning behind this is that an applicant having an income of Rs. 12,000/- per month would not apply for selection as Anganbari Sevika whose honorarium is Rs. 6,000/- per month.

4. Learned counsel submits that paragraph ‘6’ of the guidelines talks of income of Rs. 12,000/- which has been clarified as Rs. 12,000/- per month vide department’s letter no. 4501 dated 07.08.2019 but the Commissioner could not appreciate that the candidate may have income from various sources. If a candidate has an income of Rs. 12,000/- per month from any of the sources such as agriculture, horticulture, interest or house-rent/properties, she would be ineligible to appear for selection as Anganbari Sevika. It is submitted that in this case, the income of the husband of the respondent no. 8 is Rs. 25,000/- per month, therefore her candidature was liable to be rejected.

5. Learned counsel for the State submits that paragraph ‘6’ of the guideline talks of the income of the applicant and not of the husband. Learned counsel has submitted

Patna High Court CWJC No.1003 of 2023(2) dt.25-04-2023 4/5

that in this regard, the Commissioner, Munger has perhaps not appreciated the guideline. Moreover, he was not required to go into such issues because in the present case, the fact was that the selected candidate (respondent no. 8) had an yearly income of Rs. 80,000/- which was less than Rs. 12,000/- per month but the petitioner was claiming that the monthly salary of the husband of the selected candidate being Rs. 25,000/- per month, his income be also added with the income of the selected candidate for the purpose of paragraph ‘6’ of the guideline.

6. Learned counsel for the State submits that the Commissioner, Munger Division has, though, made an observation with regard to paragraph ‘6’ of the guideline which was not required but in ultimate analysis, he has rightly not interfered with the impugned order passed by the District Programme Officer.

7. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State, this Court agrees with the submissions advanced on behalf of the State. Paragraph ‘6’ of the guidelines reads as under:-

“6. v;ksX;rk & vkosfndk ftudh vk; 12000@& ¼ckjg gtkj½ :- ;k mlls T;knk gS@tuizfrfuf/k @ lacaf/kr iz[kaM ds tu forj.k iz.kkyh fodzsrk p;u ds fy, v;ksX; gksxhA ;fn fdlh vH;FkhZ dks fdlh U;k;ky; ls nf.Mr fd;k x;k gks rks mls Hkh vkWxuokM+h lsfodk @lgkf;dk ds in ds fy, p;fur ugha fd;k tk;sxkA”

Patna High Court CWJC No.1003 of 2023(2) dt.25-04-2023 5/5

8. This Court has been informed that earlier in 201216 guidelines, the income of the husband and other relatives of the candidate was a factor to be considered in the matter of selection of the Anganbari Sevika, but those provisions have been dispensed with in the guidelines of 2019.

9. To this Court, it appears that by no stretch of imagination, the income of the respondent no. 8 may be calculated by adding the income of her husband for the purpose of placing her within the ineligibility conditions of paragraph ‘6’ of the guidelines.

9. This application has, thus, no merit. It is dismissed accordingly.

(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J)

lekhi/-

U

respondent

Masusma Pravin

Coram

AI extract

Rajeev Ranjan Prasad

CNR

BRHC010011122023

Topic

Service and Employment

Bench

Rajeev Ranjan Prasad

Disposal

DISMISSED

Sindhu Kumari Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

25 Apr 2023

Kashi Nath Jha Vs The State of Bihar

25 Apr 2023