Anganbadi Sevika selection dispute: appellant challenged the Single Judge's writ judgment upholding Shah Shabnam's merit-list selection in Sitamarhi. The Division Bench found the District Magistrate's contrary order factually flawed and dismissed the appeal.
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 Letters Patent Appeal No.343 of 2022 In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5544 of 2021
======================================================
Renu Kumari Wife of Ram Sanjivan Singh, Resident of Village and P.O.Kamaldah Ward No. 8, P.S.- Bathnaha, District - Sitamarhi.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
... ... Respondent/s
====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. N. Hoda with Mr. Alok Kumar Alok and Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocates For the State : Mr. Gyan Prakash Ojha, GA 7 with Mr. Abhishek Singh, AC to GA 7 ======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR)
Date : 03-04-2024
Heard the parties.
is made to an order/judgment of this Court dated 22.06.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWJC No. 5544 of 2021 whereby and whereunder the writ petition has been allowed
Patna High Court L.P.A No.343 of 2022 dt.03-04-2024 2/6
after setting aside the order of the District Magistrate (Appellate Authority) upholding the order of the District Programme Officer dated 05.06.2018 under Memo No. 391.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.343 of 2022 dt.03-04-2024 3/6
submitted that the learned Single Judge has considered all the contentions raised by the appellant and negated the same.
Counsel for the parties and after perusing the materials available on record, this Court finds that pursuant to an advertisement for selection of Anganbadi Sevika of Centre No. 79 in Ward No. 8 in the district of Sitamarhi, the candidates, including the petitioner and respondent no. 9, have submitted their applications. Admittedly, the predominant caste category of Centre No. 79 was the General Category and in terms of the guidelines 2016, in case of unavailability of candidate of a General Category, selection was to be made on the basis of preference to a candidate of Scheduled Tribes, Scheduled Castes, Extremely Backward Class and Backward Class in that sequence. There is no dispute that the petitioner belongs to a member of Extremely Backward Class and thus on account of unavailability of candidate of Scheduled Tribe/Scheduled Caste, the next preference category shall be Extremely Backward Class. However, despite the aforesaid facts, the respondent no. 9 was not selected compelling her to approach before the District Programme Officer by filing a complaint alleging irregularities in the selection process. The District Programme Officer having
Patna High Court L.P.A No.343 of 2022 dt.03-04-2024 4/6
found substance in the complaint of respondent no. 9 has accepted her complaint under order dated 05.06.2018 and directed to ensure a fresh selection procedure after making necessary correction in the merit list under the 2016 guidelines.
7 In the aforesaid premise we examine the contention of the appellant; firstly with regard to nonappearance of respondent no. 9 in the counselling. The aforenoted contention of the appellant has no basis for the simple reason that the District Programme Officer, Sitamarhi under its order dated 05.06.2018 has categorically observed that the respondent no. 9 was present in the counselling and in this regard the Ward Member and Ward Panch of Ward No. 8 as well as Sarpanch and other villagers have submitted written statement certifying her presence.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.343 of 2022 dt.03-04-2024 5/6
8 Coming to the second contention of the appellant that the respondent no. 9 has not passed her matriculation examination in the year 2013, appears to be wholly misconceived for the simple reason as the materials available on record clearly suggest that the respondent no. 9 had appeared in her matriculation examination in the year 2013, but on being failed in mathematics she appeared in the supplementary examination conducted in the year 2014 and thereafter marksheet has been issued in the year 2014. In such circumstances, the respondent no. 9 is declared successful candidate of matriculation for the year 2013, irrespective of the fact that the marksheet of matriculation containing 35 marks in mathematics was issued in the year 2014. The learned Single Judge has carefully taken note of this aspect after referring to proposal No. 6 of the proceeding of Aam Sabha.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.343 of 2022 dt.03-04-2024 6/6
supplementary examination of the years 2013 and 2014 respectively, but it was knowingly not considered by the Lady Supervisor, Bathnaha, Sitamarhi due to which she was reprimanded and restrained from participating in the selection process till further orders.
(K. Vinod Chandran, CJ)
(Harish Kumar, J)
| Anjani/- | |
|---|---|
| AFR/NAFR | |
| CAV DATE | |
| Uploading Date | 08.04.2024 |
| Transmission Date |
2 issues framed by the court
Whether respondent no. 9 was lawfully selected as Anganbadi Sevika despite alleged non-appearance at counselling and matriculation discrepancies.
Whether the District Magistrate's order reversing the District Programme Officer's selection finding was sustainable.
Renu Kumari
The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary Social Welfare Department
The Director Integrated Child Development Services, Patna
The Divisional Commissioner, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur
The District Magistrate-Cum-Collector, Sitamarhi
Shah Shabnam
K. Vinod Chandran
Harish Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
