Sanjay Kumar Mehta v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1575 of 2017 =========================================================== Sanjay Kumar Mehta, Son of Sri Vishwanath Mehta, Resident of Vill.- Ratanpura, P.S.- Ratanpura, District- Supaul.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

2. The Chief Secretary Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

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

4. The Director, I.C.D.S. Bihar, Patna.

.... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

For the Respondent/s :

=========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) Date: 17-05-2017 Challenging certain criteria laid down in the policy formulated for selection of Anganwari Sahayika under the scheme formulated for appointment of Anganwari Sevika and Sahayikas as per the guidelines, 2016 (Annexure-4) and contending that in formulating the Selection Committee and nominating a lady supervisor as a Member Secretary and further giving preference to a widowed lady of the General Category for appointment, an arbitrary decision has been taken, the writ petition has been filed challenging the guidelines.

2. Merely because a contract employee who is incharge

Patna High Court CWJC No.1575 of 2017 dt.17-05-2017 2/2 of the Anganwari Centre is also a Member Secretary of the Selection Committee and preference to a widowed lady is granted in appointment as an Anganwari Sahayika, we see no reason to make interference into the matter primarily on account of the fact that it is only a guideline for appointment on a post under scheme based on payment of honorarium. It is neither an appointment to the civil post nor statutory rule framed under Article 309 of the Constitution. Except for contending that the guidelines are illegal, nothing else is brought to our notice based on which it can be held that the provisions are ultra vires, arbitrary or illegal in nature.

3. Accordingly, finding no case for making any indulgence into the matter pertaining to the guidelines in question, the writ petition stands dismissed.

(Rajendra Menon, CJ) (Sudhir Singh, J) P.K.P.

AFR/NAFR N.A.F.R.

CAV DATE N.A.

Uploading Date 23.05.2017 Transmission Date