Mrs. Manju Kumari @ Manju Devi Vs The State of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10174 of 2024

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

Mrs. Manju Kumari @ Manju Devi Wife of Ramesh Kumar Mukhiya @ Ramesh Kumar Resident of Village- Chaturbhuj Piprahi, Ward No.- 03, P.S.Laukaha, Block- Khutauna, District- Madhubani.

¶4

... ... Petitioner/s

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna.

¶7

The Principal Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

¶8

The Director (ICDS), Social Welfare Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

¶9

The District Magistrate, Madhubani.

¶10

¶11

¶12

The District Programme Officer, Madhubani.

¶13

The Child Development Project Officer, Khutana, Madhubani.

¶14

Smt. Pinki Kumari, W/o Santosh Kumar R/o Village- Chaturbhuj Piprahi, P.S.- Laukaha, Block- Khutauna, District- Madhubani.

¶15

... ... Respondent/s

¶16

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Pramod Kumar Yadav, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr.Kumar Samarjeet Singh, AC to SC21 ======================================================

¶17

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER

¶18

4 01-05-2026

¶19

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

¶20

counsel for the State.

¶21

The present writ petition has been filed with the

¶22

following reliefs:-

¶23

i. For quashing the order dated 17.05.2023 passed in Anganwadi Appeal Case No. 207 of 2022 by the court of Ld. Collector, Madhubani whereby and whereunder the said appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 04.07.2022 passed in Misc. Case No. 42 of 2019 by the District Programme Officer, Madhubani rejecting the claim of the petitioner for the selection on the post of Aganwadi Sevika has been affirmed.

¶24

Patna High Court CWJC No.10174 of 2024(4) dt.01-05-2026 2/4

¶25

ii. Also for quashing the order as contained in memo no. 1363 dated 04.07.2022 passed in Misc. Case No. 42 of 2019 by the District Programme Officer, who has rejected the claim of the petitioner to be appointed on the post of Aganwadi Sevika.

¶26

iii. Also for commanding the respondents to appoint the petitioner on the said post on basis of the original mapping panji prepared by the then women supervisor.

¶27

iv. Also for any other appropriate reliefs to which the petitioner is found entitled either in the eye of law or in the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that both

¶29

the impugned orders may be set aside due to the reason that the mapping punji on the basis of which the selection has not been made as per the exact population of Schedule Caste (SC) as according to him, the electoral role which was published and on the basis of which, the said mapping punji (mapping register) has been prepared, is not correct. He further submits that the electoral role of another ward has been taken care of and only due to this reason, the population of SC category has been increased.

¶30

Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, submits that both authorities have considered this aspect of the matter and in the counter-affidavit also, the specific pleading has come in paragraph 13 that the main object of the petitioner was

¶31

Patna High Court CWJC No.10174 of 2024(4) dt.01-05-2026 3/4

¶32

that the lady supervisor had made interpolation in the mapping register of centre No.171 and in this respect, the report was called for from the answering respondent No.5 (DPO, Madhubani) and report was submitted vide letter No.2232 dated 10.12.2022 stating therein that the then lady supervisor namely, Nutan Kumari prepared the mapping register and after getting the objection, it was verified by the then CDPO, Laukaha who found the majority category of Centre No.171 is SC category and accordingly, the report vide his letter No.348 dated 03.12.2018 was submitted and the said report, which was verified one, is the basis for the decision.

¶33

In the light of the submissions made by the parties and the reasoning assigned by the District Magistrate, Madhubani in order impugned that after objection on the mapping register prepared by a Lady Supervisor, namely, Nutan Kumari, verification has been made, then only, decision has been taken. As such, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the order passed by the District Magistrate, and therefore, this writ petition is hereby dismissed.

¶34

However, liberty is hereby granted to the petitioner that she may challenge the mapping register in which the population of a particular caste has been decided as majority in

¶35

Patna High Court CWJC No.10174 of 2024(4) dt.01-05-2026 4/4

¶36

a title suit and by way of calling of the voters with their evidences. The trial court shall ascertain that the population of which caste is of majority in the said ward. The petitioner may file a Civil Suit in this matter and after decision on the civil suit, the petitioner shall be at liberty to come before the authority with the decision of the trial court.

¶37

With the aforesaid directions and observations, the present writ application stands dismissed.

¶38

(Dr. Anshuman, J)

¶39

Prakashmani/-

¶40

U

Mrs. Manju Kumari @ Manju Devi v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs. Manju Kumari @ Manju Devi v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Most Ram Rati Devi Vs The state of Bihar

Ramchandra Chaudhary Vs The State of Bihar

Shyam Narayan Ram Vs The State of Bihar

Gyan Ranjan Kumar Vs The State of Bihar through Shri Pratyaya Amrit, Chief Secretary

Sridhar Prasad Singh Vs The State of Bihar though the Principal Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department

Madhuranjan Sah Vs The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj Department