Reeta Devi v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2043 of 2014 ===========================================================

1. Reeta Devi W/O Sri Jai Nandan Paswan Resident Of Village- Durmatta, P.S.- Harpur, Block- Sangrampur, District- Munger .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State Of Bihar

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

3. The Commissioner, Munger Division, Patna

4. The District Magistrate, Munger

5. The District Programme Officer, Munger

6. The Child Development Project Officer, Sangrampur, District- Munger

7. The Gram Panchayat Raj Dumatta, P.S. Sangrampur, District- Munger

8. The Chairman, Selection Committee Of Anganwari Sevika, Code No. 69, Centre Durmatta- 1 Within Durmatta Gram Panchayat Raj, P.S.- Sangrampur, DistrictMunger

9. Smt. Rupam Kumari W/O Sri Manoj Kumar Kapri Resident Of VillageDurmatta, Within Block And P.S.- Sangrampur, District- Munger .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Subodh Kumar Jha Mr Pranav Kumar Jha For the Respondent/s : Ms Archana Sinha, AC to GP 31 For Respondent No.9 : Mr Pramod Mishra Mr Arun Kumar =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 30-09-2015 Prima facie, the Court is satisfied that the decision of the appellate authority i.e. Regional Deputy Director, Welfare requires to be quashed for the simple reason that he has in a very casual and cursory manner glossed over the illegality and irregularities committed in the process of selection for Anganbari Sevika . There are overbearing materials and evidence to show how the respondents

Patna High Court CWJC No.2043 of 2014 dt.30-09-2015 2/2 have acted and how the system has been manipulated and despite impediments in the selection of the private respondent in terms of the guidelines, the said facts have been ignored or bypassed. Since such selections are required to be made in the public domain, the least which is required to be done is to give a fair opportunity to one and all. A selection process cannot be rigged merely because the family members of the private respondent are well placed in society and have held or are holding various elective post of one nature or the other.

Things being what they are, the Court comes to a considered opinion that the impugned order contained in Annexure10, dated 5.1.2015 is required to be quashed. A direction is issued that a fresh process of selection must be held within a period of three months from today.

Writ application is allowed.

(Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J) sk U