Nirbhay Kumari v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13132 of 2018 ====================================================== Nirbhay Kumari Wife of Ranjay Paswan, resident of village - Phulkahan, Block Dumari Katasari, P.S. Shyampur Bhatahan, District- Sheohar. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State Of Bihar through Principal Secretary Deptt. Of Welfare Govt. of Bihar, Patna 2.

The Director, Integrated Child Development Scheme I.C.D.S. Directorate, Bihar, Patna.

3.

The District Magistrate, Sheohar Distt- Sheohar. 4.

The District Programme Officer, welfare Sheohar Distt- Sheohar. 5.

The Child Development Programme Officer, Dumari Katsarai, DisttSheohar. 6.

Nuraisha Khatoon wife of Manaullah Ansari, resident of villagePhulakahan, Block Dumari Katasari,P.S. Distt. Sheohar. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Sri Krishna Ranjan For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Rajesh Kumar, AC to GP-3 Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Mishra, Adv Mrs. Manini Jaiswal, Adv ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD ORAL ORDER 17-10-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned State counsel and learned counsel for respondent No. 6. 2.

The petitioner's selection as Anganbari Sewika for Centre No. 87 has been cancelled under order dated 25.04.2017 by the District Programme Officer, Sheohar in Misc. Case No. 14/2015.

3.

The petitioner has thereafter preferred an appeal before the District Magistrate, which also has been rejected under order dated 31.03.2018.

Patna High Court CWJC No.13132 of 2018(4) dt.17-10-2022 2/3 4.

The petitioner's counsel has made two fold submissions while assailing the two orders. He has submitted that in view of Clause 4.6 of the Guidelines for Selection of Anganwari Sevika/Sahayika, 2011 (for short '2011 Guidelines'), there being no candidate possessing the minimum requisite educational qualification, the petitioner was entitled to be selected by virtue of being a resident of the adjoining poshak Kshetra. It is also submitted that the authorities have relied upon disqualification of the petitioner in terms of Clause 4.9 of the 2011 Guidelines on account of her father being in government employment as Block Panchayat Raj Officer which is also unsustainable in as much as her father was transferred to the district wherein the selection has been made in February, 2014, whereas the advertisement is of much prior date thereto. 5.

For considering the submissions, it would be appropriate to take note of the relevant clause under which the dispute arises, namely, Clause 4.9 of the 2011 Guidelines, which reads as follows:

"4.9 संबसंधधित पसंचचायत/प्रखसंड/असंचल/अनुमसंडल एवसं धजिलचा में पदस्थचाधपत सरकचाररी (ककन्द्र सरकचार एवसं रचाज्य सरकचार)/अर्द्धसरकचाररी पनुरूष कमर्द्धचचाररी/पदचाधधिकचाररी करी पतरी/बह/अन्य धरश्तकदचार कचा चयन सकधवकचा पद पर नहहीं धकयचा जिचायकगचा । [धरश्तकदचार सक अथर्द्ध ह- ममाँ (ससौतकलचा/दत्तक पनुत्र एवसं पनुत्ररी) भचाभरी (अथर्थात् बडक एवसं छछोटक भचाई करी पतरी, पनुत्ररी, बहन) । तथचा इसकक सचाथ सरकचाररी (ककन्द्र सरकचार एवसं रचाज्य

Patna High Court CWJC No.13132 of 2018(4) dt.17-10-2022 3/3 सरकचार)/अर्द्धसरकचाररी मधहलचा कमर्द्धचचाररी/पदचाधधिकचाररी कक मचामलक में उनकक पधत कक सहछोदर भचाई करी पतरी, बहनु, पनुत्ररी और ननद] सकधवकचा/सहचाधयकचा कक पद पर चयन हकतनु अयछोग्य हछोगरी। संधवदचा अथवचा मचानदकय आधिचाधरत कमर्द्धचचाररी यचा पदचाधधिकचाररी धजिनकरी मचाधसक आय रू०6000/ - (छछः हजिचार रूपयक) यचा उससक कम ह, उनकक ऊपर यह कसंधडकचा लचागह नहहीं हछोतरी ह।"

6.

Bare perusal of the Clause 4.9 shows that the bar is on "चयन" (selection), in case enumerated relative of the candidate is working in the Panchayat/Block/Circle/Subdivisional and District. 7.

Since the petitioner's father was transferred in the district in February, 2017, prior to selection, the petitioner had suffered a disqualification for selection by virtue of Clause 4.9 of 2011 Guidelines and was therefore ineligible for being selected at the Aam Sabha on 16.12.2014. The orders passed by the District Programme Officer dated 25.04.2017 as well as the District Magistrate dated 31.03.2018, therefore, require no interference.

8. The writ petition is dismissed.

(Madhuresh Prasad, J) SUMIT/- U