Dismissed¶32

Kumari Karishma Bharti v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC2 Apr 2025CWJC/5096/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CWJC No.5096 of 2025, Patna High Court, decided 02-04-2025 by Harish Kumar J. Keywords: Anganwadi Sevika/Aanganwadi Sewika selection; ICDS; Anganwadi Centre No. 426; Panchayat Neema; Sherpur; Begusarai; CDPO; District Programme Officer; Divisional Commissioner Munger; Anganwadi Service Appeal No. 65 of 2022; Complaint Case No. 25/2021; Appeal Case No. 01/2022; order dated 09.10.2024; merit list 68%/66.71%/66.6%; poshak kshetra residence; voter list; forged educational/residential/caste certificates; concurrent findings negating allegations; no procedural infirmity; writ petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

No reason to interfere with the impugned order in view of the concurrent findings of all the forums, based on documentary evidence and the reports submitted by the concerned authorities, negating the petitioner's allegations.

Kumari Karishma Bharti Vs The State of Bihar — Patna HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶32

Issue for consideration

Whether the selection of private respondent nos. 6 and 7 to the post of Anganwadi Sewika at Anganwadi Centre No. 426, Panchayat Neema, Sherpur, Begusarai was vitiated by their alleged incorrect statements in the application forms, non-residence in the poshak kshetra, absence of husband/father-in-law names from the voter list, and forged/fabricated educational, residential and caste certificates. +1 more

¶21

Ratio / Principle

¶29

Key takeaways

The petitioner failed to bring on record any substantial document(s) in support of her claim and failed to point out any procedural infirmity, thereby making out no case for interference with the impugned orders.ratio¶29
There is no challenge to the orders passed by the CDPO, Begusarai as well as the District Programme Officer, Begusarai.ratio¶31

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bihar - Anganwadi Sevika selection, Anganwadi Centre No. 426, Gram Panchayat Neema/Sherpur, Begusarai. Petitioner Kumari Karishma Bharti - placed third in the Selection Committee merit list with 66.6% marks against respondent no. 6's 68% and respondent no. 7's 66.71%, as narrated by State counsel from the District Programme Officer's report - assailed the Divisional Commissioner, Munger's order dated 09.10.2024 rejecting Anganwadi Service Appeal No. 65 of 2022 and affirming the orders of the District Programme Officer (ICDS), Begusarai and the CDPO, Begusarai. Her allegations: private respondent nos. 6 and 7 made incorrect statements at form submission, were not residents of the poshak kshetra, their husbands'/father-in-law's names were absent from the voter list, respondent no. 6's educational, residential and caste certificates were not genuine, and the Selection Committee colluded; earlier representations, Complaint Case No. 25/2021 before the CDPO and Appeal Case No. 01/2022 before the DPO had failed. State authorities contended the form-time mistakes were later removed by filling an affidavit with necessary documents and that both private respondents are residents of the poshak kshetra whose husbands'/father-in-law's names find place in the voter list. Held: with concurrent findings of all the forums on documentary evidence and authority reports negating the allegations, the petitioner producing no substantial documents and pointing to no procedural infirmity, and no challenge standing to the CDPO/DPO orders, the writ petition lacks merit and stands dismissed. By Harish Kumar, J (single judge), decided 02-04-2025.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5096 of 2025

¶2

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

¶3

Kumari Karishma Bharti, Wife of Rajeev Kumar Sah, Resident of VillageSherpur Ward No.7, P.S. Neema Chandpura, Sadar Block Begusarai, DistrictBegusarai.

¶4

... ... Petitioner/s

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Human Resource and Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

¶7

The Divisional Commissioner, Munger

¶8

The District Magistrate, Begusarai

¶9

The District Programme Officer, Begusarai

¶10

¶11

The Child Development Programme Officer, Begusarai.

¶12

Seema Raj Wife of Ram Praves Kumar Resident of Village-Sherpur Gram Panchayat Neema, Ward No. 7, P.S. Neema, District-Begusarai.

¶13

Sheela Kumari Wife of Chandan Kumar Resident of Village-Sherpur Gram Panchayat Neema, Ward No. 7, P.S. Neema, District-Begusarai.

¶14

... ... Respondent/s

¶15

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sanjay Prasad, Advocate ======================================================

¶16

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR ORAL ORDER

¶17

2 02-04-2025 Heard the parties.

¶18

The petitioner who was one of the aspirant for the post of Anganwadi Sevika has assailed the order dated 09.10.2024 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Munger whereby while rejecting the Anganwadi Service Appeal No. 65 of 2022, the learned Divisional Commissioner has affirmed the order passed by the District Programme Officer (ICDS), Begusarai as well as the order of the CDPO, Begusarai.

¶19

Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned Advocate for the

¶20

Patna High Court CWJC No.5096 of 2025(2) dt.02-04-2025 2/5

¶21

petitioner while assailing the impugned order has vehemently contended that both the private respondent nos. 6 and 7 alongwith the petitioner had submitted application for selection to the post of Anganwadi Sewika in respect to Anganwadi Centre No. 426 Panchayat Neema, Sherpur, Begusarai. At the time of submission of the form, the private respondent no. 6 and 7 have made incorrect statement and moreover, they are not the resident of the poshak kshetra and the names of their husband/father-in-law do not find place in the voter list. It is specifically contended that respondent no. 6 has given a false statement regarding her antecedent and her educational certificate as well as the residential and caste certificate were not genuine. Despite several representation filed by the petitioner highlighting the infirmities committed by the private respondents in collusion of Selection Committee in the entire selection process, when nothing has been done, the petitioner finally approached before the CDPO, Begusarai by filing Complaint Case No. 25/2021, which came to be rejected.

¶22

The petitioner further preferred Appeal Case no. 01/2022 before the District Programme Officer, Begusarai. However the District Programme Officer, Begusarai without applying his mind passed the impugned order, rejecting the

¶23

Patna High Court CWJC No.5096 of 2025(2) dt.02-04-2025 3/5

¶24

appeal of the petitioner in a mechanical manner. The contention of the petitioner that forged and fabricated documents apart from incorrect residential certificate were placed alongwith the form of respondent nos. 6 and 7, have been completely ignored. Aggrieved with the order passed by the District Programme Officer, the petitioner preferred Aanganwadi Service Appeal No. 65 of 2022 before the Court of Learned Divisional Commissioner, Munger. The entire facts, aforenoted, have been brought on record, but the similar mistake has been committed by the Divisional Commissioner and a completely mechanical order has been passed, basing upon the only fact that the private respondent nos. 6 and 7 have obtained higher position in the merit list than the petitioner. The infirmities as have been shown by the petitioner have been completely overlooked and, as such, the entire selection was tinkered with the manifest irregularities and infirmities, thus vitiates the selection, is the contention of learned Advocate for the petitioner.

¶25

Mr. Sanjay Prasad, learned Advocate for the State having taken this Court through the impugned order has contended that the report of the District Programme Officer clearly reveals that the respondent no. 6 has obtained 68% merit marks, whereas the respondent no. 7 has obtained 66.71%; so

¶26

Patna High Court CWJC No.5096 of 2025(2) dt.02-04-2025 4/5

¶27

far the petitioner is concerned, she has secured 66.6% marks and, as such, in the merit list duly prepared by the Selection Committee she found third position.

¶28

It is further contended that with regard to the certain infirmities at the time of submission of the form by the private respondents have also been duly clarified by the CDPO, and the District Programme Officer, Begusarai that the mistakes cropped up at the time of submission of the forms, have been removed later on by filling an affidavit with the necessary documents. It is the specific contention of the respondent State authorities, based upon the documents that both the private respondents are the resident of poshak kshetra and the name of their respective husband and father-in-law also finds place in the voter list.

¶29

Having heard the learned Advocate for the respective parties and after going through the impugned order, this Court does not find any reason to interfere in the impugned order in view of the concurrent findings by all the forums based on documentary evidence and the reports submitted by the concerned authorities negating the allegation of the petitioner. Moreover, the petitioner has failed to bring on record any substantial document(s) in support of her claim nor able to point

¶30

Patna High Court CWJC No.5096 of 2025(2) dt.02-04-2025 5/5

¶31

out any procedural infirmity and thereby make out a case of interference in the impugned orders; all the more there is no challenge to the order(s) passed by the CDPO, Begusarai as well as District Programme Officer, Begusarai..

¶32

In view thereof, the writ petition does not find any merit, accordingly stands dismissed.

¶33

(Harish Kumar, J)

¶34

supratim/-

¶35

Kumari Karishma Bharti v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kumari Karishma Bharti v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhim Sen Kumar Vs The Union of India

Ravindra Kumar Sharma Vs The State Of Bihar

Narendra Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Abhishek Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Anil Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Divakar Kumar Vs The State of Bihar