Dismissed¶42

Janaki Mandal v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC16 Jun 2026CWJC/7687/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anganwadi Sevika/Sahyika selection dispute, Katihar (Amdabad); CWJC 7687/2026 dismissed 16-06-2026 by Dr. Anshuman, J.; ADC Katihar order dated 20.10.2025 in Anganbadi Appeal No. 08/2023-24 upheld; DPO Katihar order dated 26.11.2020 (Memo No. 1035 dated 09.12.2020, Appeal No. 01/2028) set aside; petitioner Janaki Mandal's name on voter lists of both Jharkhand and West Bengal; Form-7 deletion not filed (RTI reply letter no. 1666 dated 27.06.2018); Clause 5, Anganwadi Sevika/Sahyika Selection Guidelines, 2016; Respondent No. 6 Sunita Mandal appointed; certiorari refused; no interference.

What did the court decide?

This Court found the reasoning assigned by the Additional Collector in the impugned order dated 20.10.2025 to be correct, held that no interference was needed, and dismissed the writ petition. ¶42

Janaki Mandal Vs The State of Bihar — Patna HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶42

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 20.10.2025 passed by the Additional District Collector, Katihar in Anganbadi Appeal No. 08/2023-24 - setting aside the District Programme Officer, Katihar's order dated 26.11.2020 (Memo No. 1035 dated 09.12.2020, Appeal No. 01/2028) and directing removal of the petitioner from the post of Anganwadi Sevika and appointment of Respondent No. 6 for Anganwadi Centre No. 186, Ward No. 05, Choukia Paharpur Panchyat, Amdabad, Katihar - should be quashed by a writ in the nature of Certiorari. +1 more

¶21

Court's answer

This Court found the reasoning assigned by the Additional Collector in the impugned order dated 20.10.2025 to be correct, held that no interference was needed, and dismissed the writ petition.

¶42

Ratio / Principle

At the time of argument, counsel for the petitioner was not in a position to explain how the petitioner's name was present in the voter lists of both Jharkhand and Bengal.

¶41

Key takeaways

From the information obtained by the opposing parties under RTI, it was clear that Form-7 had not been used for removing the name, which the Court took into account in upholding the Additional Collector's reasoning.ratio¶41

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Patna High Court (Dr. Anshuman, J., oral judgment, 16-06-2026) dismissed CWJC No.7687 of 2026 filed by Janaki Mandal challenging the order dated 20.10.2025 of the Additional District Collector, Katihar in Anganbadi Appeal No. 08/2023-24, which set aside the District Programme Officer, Katihar's order dated 26.11.2020 (Memo No. 1035 dated 09.12.2020, Appeal No. 01/2028) and directed her removal from the post of Anganwadi Sevika, Anganwadi Centre No. 186, Ward No. 05, Choukia Paharpur Panchyat, Amdabad, Katihar, and appointment of Respondent No. 6 (Sunita Mandal). Endorsing the Additional Collector's reasoning, the Court observed that the petitioner's name figured on the voter lists of both Jharkhand and Bengal, that her counsel could not explain the dual enrolment at argument, and that information obtained under RTI showed Form-7 had not been used for removing the name; the impugned order had further recorded that enrolment on the electoral rolls of two different States to derive benefit is unlawful. Finding the reasoning correct, the Court declined to interfere and dismissed the petition (NAFR).

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7687 of 2026

¶2

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

¶3

Janaki Mandal Wife of Vivekananda Mandal, Resident of Village- Ratan Tola, Ward No. 5, P.O.- Choukia Paharpur, P.S.- Amdabad, District- Katihar, Bihar PIN- 854112.

¶4

... ... Petitioner/s

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Bihar through the Director, Integrated Child Development Scheme, Bihar, Patna.

¶7

The District Collector, Katihar.

¶8

The Additional District Collector, Katihar.

¶9

The District Programme Officer, Katihar.

¶10

The Child Development Project Officer, Amdabad, Katihar.

¶11

Sunita Mandal, Wife of Ram Jeevan Mandal, Resident of Village- Ratan Tola, Ward No. 5, Chokia Paharpur, P.S. - Amdabad, District- Katihar.

¶12

... ... Respondent/s

¶13

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

¶14

Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Government Pleader (11)

¶15

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

¶16

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL JUDGMENT

¶17

Date : 16-06-2026

¶18

Learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned

¶19

Counsel for the State are present.

¶20

The petitioner has filed the present writ petition for the following reliefs:-

¶21

“ a) For issuance of order/orders, direction/directions or writ/writs in the nature of Certiorari for quashing and setting the order dated 20.10.2025 passed by the Additional District Collector, Katihar in Anganbadi Appeal No. 08/2023-24 whereby

¶22

Patna High Court CWJC No.7687 of 2026 dt.16-06-2026

¶23

2/5

¶24

he has set aside the order dated 26.11.2020 contained in Memo No. 1035 dated 09.12.2020 passed by the District Programme Officer, Katihar in Appeal No. 01/2028 and directed to remove the petitioner from the post of Anganwadi Sevika and to appoint Respondent No. 6 to the post of Anganbadi Sevika for Anganwadi Centre No. 186, Ward No. 05, Choukia Paharpur Panchyat, Amdabad, Katihar.

¶25

b) For issuance of a direction to the Respondent Authorities to select the petitioner to the post of Anganbadi Sevika for Anganwadi Centre No. 186, Ward No. 05, Choukia Paharpur Panchyat, Amdabad, Katihar as she had been selected after fulfilling the eligibility criteria prescribed under Clause 5 of the Anganwadi Sevika/Sahyika Selection Guidelines, 2016. c) For issuance of such other order/orders, direction/directions, writ/writs which the Petitioner may be entitled to in the facts and circumstances of the case”

¶26

Learned Counsel for petitioner submits that

¶27

the writ petition is relating to appointment of Anganwadi Sevika/Sahyika for Anganwadi Centre No. 186, Ward No. 5, Choukia Paharpur Panchyat, Amdabad, Katihar. Counsel submits that the petitioner had appeared in the appointment

¶28

Patna High Court CWJC No.7687 of 2026 dt.16-06-2026 3/5

¶29

process. The name of the petitioner has present in the voter list of the said locality/Ward, but selection of the petitioner was rejected by the Additional Collector which is wrong.

¶30

Learned Counsel for State, on the other hand, submits that the order passed by the Additional Collector dated 20.10.2025 is a well reasoned order in which categorical reason has been assigned in paragraph 5 of the reasoning upon hearing both the parties and perusal of the documents.

¶31

He submits that it is a well reasoned order and there is no need of any interference. After hearing the parties, the reason has been assigned which states as follows:-

¶32

“1. vihykFkhZ nkok djrs gSa fd p;fur lsfodk izfroknh la[;k 06 tkudh eaMy jktegy] >kj[k.M dh jgus okyh gS rFkk jktegy fo/kku lHkk ernkrk lwph es p;fur lsfodk ds ifr&foosdkuan eaMy] ifr HkksykukFk eaMy dk uke ntZ gS lkFk gh jktegy ds jk”kudkMZ la[;k 202001279637 esa p;fur lsfodk ds ifr foosdkuan eaMy dh ekrk gqylh nsoh ,oa muds firk HkksykukFk eaMy dk uke ntZ gSA ogka ls og jk”ku dk mBko dj jgh gSA tkudh eaMy dk uke if”pe caxky ds ekfudpd fo/kku lHkk ¼if”pe caxky½ds ernkrk lwph ,oa jk”kudkMZ esa ntZ gSA

¶33

2 vihykFkhZ }kjk nkf[ky >kj[k.M jkT; ds 1 jktegy fo/kku lHkk fuokZpu {ks+= ds Hkkx la[;k 115 esa ernkrk dze la[;k 19 esa foosdkuUn eaMy] firk HkksykukFk eaMy dk uke ,oa EPIC No. MWB6609382 vafdr gSA

¶34

Patna High Court CWJC No.7687 of 2026 dt.16-06-2026 4/5

¶35

3 izfroknh la[;k 6 tkudh eaMy ,d vksj ;g nkok djrh gS fd mudk >kj[k.M ,oa caxky ds oksVj fyLV esa uke ntZ gksus ,oa ljdkjh ykHk ysus dk vihykFkhZ dk nkok fujk/kkj gS] ogha nwljh vksj ;g nkok djrh gs fd mUgsa irk gh ugha Fkk fd mudk uke nksuksa txg ds oksVj fyLV esa gS] irk pyus ij mUgksaus viuk uke oksVj fyLV ls foyksfir djus gsrq fnukad 25&5&2017 dk vkWuykbZu vkosnu fn;k gSA

¶36

4 ftyk izksxzke inkf/kdkjh] dfVgkj us vius vkns”k esa mYys[k fd;k gS fd efgyk I;Zosf{kdk }kjk crk;k x;k fd p;fur lsfodk tkudh eaMy ds >kj[k.M ,oa caxky ds oksVj fyLV esa uke ntZ gksus ,oa ljdkjh ykHk ysus dk vkjksi fujk/kkj gs] D;ksafd tkudh eaMy dks irk gha ugha Fkk fd mudk uke nksuksa txg ds oksVj fyLV esa gS] fQj Hkh irk pyus ij tkudh eaMy ds }kjk viuk uke foykfir djus gsrq fnukad 25&5&2017 dks vkWuykbZu vkosnu fn;k tk pqdk gSA

¶37

5 ftyk izksxzke inkf/kdkjh ds vkns”k esa mYysf[kr efgyk I;Zosf{kdk ds dFku ,oa izfroknh }kjk vius izR;qRRkj esa dgh x;h ckr ls Li’V gksrk gS fd izfroknh tkudh eaMy dk uke >kj[k.M ,oa caxky ds oksVj fyLV esa ntZ gksus dh ckr lgh gS] vU;Fkk og viuk uke foykfir djus gsrq vkosnu djus dh ckr D;ksa dgrhA iz[k.M fodkl inkf/kdkjh] ekfudpd] ekynk }kjk lwpuk ds vf/kdkj vf/kfu;e] 2005 ds rgr vius i=kad 1666 fnukad 27&06&2018 ds rgr tkudkjh nh x;h gS fd fnukad 01&05&2017 la 31&07&2017 rd ikVZ uacj 01 ls 49 rd fdlh Hkh vkosnd ds }kjk uke gVkus gsrw QkWeZ 07 vkWuykbZu ugha fd;k x;k gSA mijksDr fLFkfr esa ftyk izksxzke inkf/kdkjh dk vkns”k =qfViw.kZ izrhr gksrk gSA

¶38

Patna High Court CWJC No.7687 of 2026 dt.16-06-2026

¶39

5/5

¶40

6 ,d O;fDr }kjk nks vyx vyx jkT; esa viuk uke ernkrk lwph esa ntZ djkdj ykHk izkIr djuk fu;ekuqdwy ugha gSA”

¶41

At the time of argument, the Counsel for petitioner is not in the position to explain the situation as to how the name of the petitioner is present in the voter list of Jharkhand and Bengal both and from the information obtained by the opponents under RTI, it is clear that from Form-7 has not been used for removing the name.

¶42

In this background, this Court finds that the reasoning assigned by the Additional Collector is correct and there is no need of any interference. Hence, this writ petition stands dismissed.

¶43

(Dr. Anshuman, J)

¶44

Mkr./Manshi/-

¶45

AFR/NAFR	NAFR
CAV DATE	NA
Uploading Date	18.06.2026
Transmission Date

Janaki Mandal v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Janaki Mandal v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nishant Deep Vs The State of Bihar

Amita Vs The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary

Kailash Prasad Choudhary Vs The Union of India

Uday Yadav Vs The State of Bihar

Satish Kumar Singh Vs The State of Bihar

Dashai Kumar Rajak Vs The State of Bihar