Neelam Kumari v. The State Of Bihar And ORS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3847 of 2017 ====================================================== Babita Kumari wife of Kamlesh Prasad Yadav, resident of Village, P.O.- Kothara, P.S.- Hayaghat, District- Darbhanga. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The State Of Bihar and Ors 2.
Principal, Secretary, Department of Social Welfare, Government of Bihar, Patna.
3.
Commissioner, Darbhanga Division, Darbhanga.
4.
District Magistrate, Darbhanga.
5.
Child Development Project Officer, Baheri, District- Darbhanga. 6.
Nilam Kumari, wife of Ramshankar Roy, resident of Village- Kothara, P.S.- Hayaghat, District- Darbhanga.
... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== with Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 14834 of 2017 ====================================================== Neelam Kumari D/o Rampukar Yadav, W/o Ram Shanker Roy, Resident of Village- Kothra, Panchayat- Hathuari North Block- Bahari, P.S.- Hayaghat, District- Darbhanga.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The State Of Bihar and Ors 2.
The Secretary, Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board, Patna. 3.
The Director, ICDS Department of Welfare, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 4.
The District Magistrate cum Collector, Darbhanga. 5.
The C.D.P.O. Baheri Block, Darbhanga.
6.
The Public Information Officer, Sanskrit Shiksha Board, Bihar, Patna. 7.
Shambhu Prasad, the then Mukhiya of Gram Panchayat Raj, Hathauri, Baheri, Darbhanga, S/o Yugeshwar Roy, Resident of- Kothra, P.O.- Kothra, Block- Baheri, P.S.- Hayaghat, District- Darbhanga. 8.
Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Raj Hathauri North, Block- Baheri, Darbhanga.
9.
Sabita Devi, W/o- Kapileshwar Yadav @ Kapildev Yadav. Resident of Village- Kothra, P.O.- Kothra, P.S.- Hayaghat, District- Darbhanga. 10.
Gunand Yadav @ Ghunand Yadav, S/o Ramrup Yadav, Resident of VillageKothra, P.O.- Kothra, P.S.- Hayaghat, District- Darbhanga. 11.
Babita Kumari, W/o Kamlesh Prasad Yadav, Resident of Village- Kothra, P.O.- Kothra, Block- Baheri, P.S.- Hayaghat, District- Darbhanga. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :
(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 3847 of 2017) For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Niranjan Kumar, Advocate Mr. Kumar Kishan, Advocate Mr. Avinash Raushan, Adv For the Respondent/s :
Mr. G.P. Ojha- GA7
2/6 Mr. Abhishek Singh, AC to GA-7 (In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 14834 of 2017) For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Prahalad Kumar Bhagat For the Respondent/s :
Mr. G. P. Ojha -GA-7 Mr. S.S. Sundaram, Advocate Mr. Shashank Shekhar Jha, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD ORAL ORDER 18-08-2022 Re: CWJC No. 3847 of 2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned State counsel.
The petitioner is aggrieved by cancellation of her selection as Anganwadi Sevika, which has been cancelled by the impugned orders.
The writ application has been filed for the following relief:
"For issuance of appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions for setting aside the order dated 6.11.2014 passed by the District Magistrate, Darbhanga in Case No.55/2010-11 by which the learned Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Darbhanga hold that the selection of petitioner in Anganbari centre no.124 Yadav Tola Kothara is not as per guideline laid down in 2006 Circular particularly clause 03(Da) and thus decision of the Aam Sabha dated 4.11.2009 is not proper and the same is being cancelled and the Child
3/6 Development Project Officer is directed to make a fresh selection of the said Anganbari Centre no.124 Yadav Tola Kothara as well as order dated 31.1.2017 passed by the Commissioner, Darbhanga Division Darbhanga in Anganbari Appeal no 9/14 which was preferred by the petitioner against the order of the District Magistrate, vide order dated 31.1.2017 by which he dismissed the said appeal only on the ground that the engagement was against the provision of clause 3(Da) of 2006 guideline" Specific ground, on which the petitioner's selection has been cancelled, is that her father at that point of time was a hawaldar in the Bihar Police and since Clause 3 (ड) of the admittedly applicable Anganwadi Sevika/Sahayika Appointment Guidelines, 2006 (hereinafter referred as "2006 Guidelines"), barred the petitioner's candidature.
Clause 3 (ड) of the 2006 Guidelines reads as follows: "(ङ) ललोक सेवककों (मुखखियय, पचययत सखमखत कसे सदस्य/वयर्ड सदस्य/खजिलय पखरिषद कसे सदस्य आखद स्वयप यय उनकसे खरिश्तसेदयरि) खवखभिन्न सरिकयरिरी सयमखग्रियकों कसे खवकसेतयओप (जिजसे जिन खवतरिण प्रणयलरी खवकसेतय, घमुमन्तमु खकरियसन तसेल कसे खवकसेतय (Dealer), अन्तरिखवभियगरीय रयकखियनय कमर्मी (Intra-
4/6 departmental Post Office Employee इत्ययखद) सरिकयरिरी एवप अर्डसरिकयरिरी सेवककों कसे खरिश्तसेदयरि यथय, बसेटरी/पतरी/पमुत्रवध/पपौत्रवध कय चयन इस पद कसे खलए नहहीं खकयय जिययसेगय।"
The petitioner's counsel has drawn attention of this Court towards Annexure 3, which is a decision of District Magistrate, Darbhanga dated 24.07.2017. Relying on the same, petitioner's counsel submits that the District Magistrate in 2017 had clarified that even daughter of a government servant would be considered for and selected as Anganwadi Sevika. From the order impugned, it is apparent that the said decision/clarification of the District Magistrate has not been placed before the authorities.
The petitioner's counsel has submitted that since the clarification issued by the District Magistrate under Clause 13 of the 2006 Guidelines is in existence, the petitioner's exclusion was unsustainable.
Clause 13 of the 2006 Guidelines, relied upon by the petitioner, reads as follows:
"13. अन्ययय :- ऑगनबयडरी सेखवकय/सहयखयकय कसे चयन सपबपधरी उपरिलोक्त खदशय खनदर्देश से अलग चयन सपबपधरी कलोई भिरी
5/6 दषष्टांत यय मयमलय प्रकयश में आतय हज तलो वजसरी खस्थखत में तथ्ययत्मक प्रखतवसेदन, खजिलय पदयखधकयरिरी कसे मयध्यम से खनदसेशक आई० सरी० ररी० एस० कलो भिसेजिनय अखनवययर्ड हलोगय। खनदसेशक आई० सरी० ररी० एस० समरीकलोपरिष्टांत उन खवशसेष मयमलकों कसे सपदभिर्ड में आवश्यक खदशय खनदर्देश खनगर्डत करिसेगमें। आँगनबयडरी सेखवकय/सहयखयकय कसे चयन सपबपधरी पधवर्ड कसे सभिरी खवभियगरीय खदशय-खनदर्देशकों कलो इस हद तक सपशलोखधत करितसे हमुयसे इसे तयत्कयखलक प्रभियव से लयगध खकयय जियतय हज।" It is apparent from the bare reading of the clause that clarification of the nature specified in clause 13 could only have been issued at the level of Directorate, I.C.D.S, which admittedly has not been done.
There is no basis for the petitioner to assail the impugned order as the fact that her father at that point of time was a hawaldar in the Bihar Police, is not denied or disputed. The writ application is devoid of merit and is dismissed.
Re: CWJC No. 14834/2017 The petitioner, being the third empanelled candidate, has sought her selection as Anganwadi Sevika and assailed the
6/6 order of District Magistrate dated 06.11.2014, rejecting the petitioner's appeal against the order passed in Case No. 95/201011 in the case of one Savita Devi vs. the Govt of Bihar Ors. The District Magistrate has rejected the petitioner's claim by assigning a reason that since petitioner's father was beneficiary having a Public Distribution System (PDS) outlet, her candidature was barred under Clause 3 (ड) of the 2006 Guidelines.
This Court has put a specific query on the petitioner's counsel, as to whether petitioner has disputed the fact that her father was beneficiary of PDS distribution outlet. Counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show that any such assertion has been made before the District Magistrate before passing the order on 06.11.2014. In view thereof, writ petition assailing the order of the District Magistrate is devoid of merit. The writ application is dismissed as no infirmity can be alleged in the order passed by the District Magistrate.
(Madhuresh Prasad, J) SUMIT/- U