Raj Kumari Devi v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No 9711 of 2019 ====================================================== Raj Kumari Devi W/o Naresh Kumar Yadav Vill.- Makra, P.s.- Nayagoan, distt.- Saran ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 2.

The Director (I.C.D.S.) Social Welfare Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 3.

The District Magistrate Saran at Chapra 4.

The District Programme Officer Saran 5.

The Child Development Project Officer (C.D.P.O.) Sonepur, Saran 6.

Suman Devi W/o Bindheshwar Sah Vill.- Makra, P.s.- Nayagoan, Distt.- Saran ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

M/s Ajay Kr Singh, Rajendra Pd Sah, Advocates For the Respondent/s :

Mr Rajesh Kumar, AC to GP III ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD ORAL ORDER 20-09-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned State Counsel.

2 The brief undisputed facts are that petitioner was selected as Anganwari Sevika at Aam Sabha dated 24.10.2014. The selection was cancelled on basis of a complaint made by Respondent No 6, in Anganwari Case No 22 of 2014 under order dated 12.04.2016, passed by the District Programme Officer, Saran at Chapra. The petitioner moved the Court of District Magistrate against the said order in Anganwari Appeal No 5 of 2016. The District Magistrate remanded the matter to

2/5 the District Programme Officer under order dated 30.03.2017 contained in Memo No 161, dated 06.04.2017, for reconsideration.

Petitioner's counsel submits that upon reconsideration, the District Programme Officer has rewritten the earlier order. The entire exercise of reconsideration, is an exercise in futility, without taking into consideration the amendments to Clause 4.9 of the Anganwari selection procedure contained in the 2011 Guidelines. Clause 4.9 stipulates that if one of the class of specified relatives of a candidate is in employment then the same will be a disqualification for the candidate. This clause, however, specifies that if income of the specified relative from employment is less than Rs 6,000/- per month then the disqualification shall not apply. Clause 4.9 of the Anganwari Sevika/Sahayika Guidelines for selection, 2011 reads as follows:

"4.9 संबसंधधित पसंचचायत/ प्रखसंड/असंचल/अनुमसंडल एवसं धजिलचा में पदस्थचाधपत सरकचाररी (ककन्द्र सरकचार एवसं रचाज्य सरकचार)/ अर्द्धसरकचाररी पनुरुष 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 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

3/5 पदचाधधिकचाररी धजिनकरी मचाधसक आय र. 6000/- ( हजिचार रपयक) यचा उससक कम ह, उनकक ऊपर यह कसंधडकचा लचागह नहहीं हछोतरी ह।"

4 Petitioner is Bhabhi (wife of younger brother) of a Panchayat Teacher. It is submitted by the petitioner's counsel that the minimum income limit for the purposes of disqualification has been amended subsequently. However, the District Programme Officer has held the petitioner disqualified by taking into consideration the original unamended minimum income of Rs 6,000/- and not the subsequently enhanced limit of Rs 15,000/- per month as per 2015 Amendment to the Guidelines of 2011. Petitioner's counsel has submitted that petitioner's elder brother-in-law was getting Rs 6,300/- per month which was much lesser than the revised minimum income of Rs 15,000/-. The petitioner, therefore, was not disqualified.

5 The petitioner again approached the District Magistrate by filing Anganwari Appeal No 6 of 2017. Surprisingly, this time the appeal has been rejected even though the District Programme Officer has not taken into consideration the amended limit of income of specified relatives of the candidate.

6 Learned State Counsel submits that since the Aam

4/5 Sabha was held on 24.10.2014, petitioner's eligibility/disqualification as on that date is the relevant consideration. Amendment, subsequent to the Aam Sabha, specifically the amendment dated 07.08.2015, being relied upon by the petitioner, cannot be made the basis of considering the petitioner's eligibility or disqualification. 7 Since reliance is placed on the amendment dated 07.08.2015, this Court would consider it appropriate to take note of the fact that the amendment of 07.08.2015 contains a specific clause which reads as follows:

"उपरछोक्त संशछोधिन/नए प्रचावधिचान तत्कचाल प्रभचाव सक लचागह हछोगमें।"

8 It is expressed in equivocal terms that the amendment is applicable with effect from the date of amendment and not with retrospective effect. The benefit off enhanced minimum income limit cannot be claimed by petitioner since it applies with effect from the date of amendment, i e, 07.08.2015. The petitioner's eligibility; and the unamended provision regarding disqualification would apply. Thus, on account of monthly income of petitioner's brother-inlaw being above Rs 6000/- per month the petitioner's candidature suffered a disqualification, as Aam Sabha was held on 24.10.2014, before the amendment.

5/5 9 Thus, the petitioner was a disqualified candidate. 10 This Court would, therefore, find that there is no reason for interfering with the impugned order/s. 11 Writ petition is dismissed.

(Madhuresh Prasad, J) M.E.H./- U