IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10078 of 2020 ====================================================== Tilki Kumari @ Tilki Devi, Wife of Dhiraj Kumar, residence of village- Guleliya Tola, P.O.- Bansipurandaha, Gram Panchayat Kuwari, Ward No. 6, P.S.- Dhamdaha, Distt.- Purnea ... ... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar through Addl. Chief Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 2. The Addl. Chief Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 3. The Director, I.C.D.S. (Social Welfare Department), Govt. of Bihar, Patna 4. The District Magistrate/Collector, Purnea, District- Purnea 5. The Sub-divisional Officer, Damdaha, District- Purnea 6. The District Programme Officer, Purnea, District- Purnea 7. The Block Development Officer, Damdaha, District- Purnea 8. The Chid Development Project Officer, Dhamdaha, District- Purnea 9. The Mahila Supervisor, Dhamdaha, District- Purnea 10. Indu Kumari Wife of Mahendra Kumar Das @ Mahendra Kumar. D/o Rajeshwar Das, Village- Dumari, P.O.- Naya Nandgola, Grampanchayat Koyali Simara West, Ward No. 11, P.S.- Tikkapatti, Dist.- Purnea, at present Resident of village Guleliya Tola, P.S. Dhamdaha, District- Purnea ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sharda Nand Mishra, Advocate For the State : Mr. Gyan Prakash Ojha, GA-7 For the Resp. No.10 : Mr. Pankaj Kumar Sinha, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 22-06-2026 Heard Mr. Sharda Nand Mishra, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Gyan Prakash Ojha, learned Advocate for the State. The respondent no.10 is represented through Mr. Pankaj Kumar Sinha, learned Advocate. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated Patna High Court CWJC No.10078 of 2020 dt.22-06-2026 2/8 27.12.2019 passed by the District Magistrate, Purnea in Service Appeal Case No. 12 of 2018 by which the appeal filed by the petitioner came to be rejected without considering her case, affirming the order dated 22.12.2017 passed by the District Programme Officer, Purnea. Challenge has also been made to the order dated 22.12.2017 passed by the District Programme Officer, Purnea whereby the application filed by respondent no.10 was allowed and the selection of the petitioner on the post of Anganwadi Sevika was cancelled. 3. The brief facts, as stated in the writ petition, are that the petitioner on being found eligible for appointment to the post of Anganwadi Sevika submitted her application on 25.08.2017 alongwith others in connection with Anganwadi Centre No.280, Ward No.6, Gram Panchayat Kuwari, Block Dhamdaha. After submission of the application by the petitioner along with other eligible candidates, a merit list was prepared and the name of the petitioner was placed at serial no.3, whereas the applicant Vina Kumari was placed at serial no.1. The candidature of Vina Kumar was not considered, as she does not belong to the majority of the caste of the Ward No.6. So far respondent no.10 is concerned, who was at serial no.2, her case has not been considered on the ground that she is found to be Patna High Court CWJC No.10078 of 2020 dt.22-06-2026 3/8 daughter of Rajeshwar Das and not the daughter-in-law of the said Tola and her Sasural is situated at Ward No.11 of Gram Panchayat Raj Koyali Simara West, Block- Rupaul, District- Purnea, where her husband resides and his name is running in the voter list, 2016. In the aforesaid premise, the petitioner on being found most suitable duly appointed against such post. 4. Aggrieved with the selection of the petitioner, the respondent no.10 filed an application before the District Programme Officer, Purnea with a categorical submission that having better qualification and residing in the village of her father she is the most suitable candidate for appointment to the post Anganwadi Sevika. Accordingly, vide order, as contained in Memo no. 1748, dated 22.12.2017, the District Programme Officer, Purnea allowed the application cancelling the selection of petitioner. In the aforesaid premise, the respondent no.10 was duly appointed. 5. Mr. Mishra, learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that the entire selection process took place under Anganwadi Sevika/Sahayika Appointment Guidelines, 2016 and it is the mandate of the said scheme that a candidate must be daughter-in-law of the concerned Tola and admittedly the name of the husband of the respondent no.10 does not find place in the Patna High Court CWJC No.10078 of 2020 dt.22-06-2026 4/8 voter list in the concerned Tola, for which the post was advertised. It is further contended that respondent no.10 also bears two date of birth, a point which has not been considered by the District Programme Officer nor the District Magistrate, Purnea. The husband of respondent no.10 and her father-in-law are resident of Ward No.11, Gram Panchayat Koyali Simara West, Block Rupauli, District Purnea and their names are also running in the voter list of 2016 of the said constituency. Despite the aforesaid fact, the respondent no.10 applied from Ward No.6 from Guleliya Tola of Gram Panchayat Kuwari, Block- Dhamdaha by ignoring the aforesaid fact and subsequently the District Programme Officer in a most arbitrary manner accepted her contention and cancelled the selection of the petitioner and appointed the respondent no.10. The Mukhiya of Gram Panchayat Raj Koyali Simari West also issued a certificate in this regard. Enquiry was also conducted at the level of the Block Development Officer, Dhamdaha, who has also admitted this fact that the name of respondent no.10 finds place in the voter list of Gram Panchayat Koyali Simara West, Ward No.11, Block Rupauli, but the authorities have failed to consider and deliberate the matter in accordance with law. 6. On the other hand, learned Advocate for the State Patna High Court CWJC No.10078 of 2020 dt.22-06-2026 5/8 taking this Court through the Anganwadi Sevika/Sahayika Appointment Guidelines, 2016, especially Clause-5 thereof submitted that bare reading of the same, it does not appear that there is any prohibition or bar to consider the claim of a daughter of a Tola, whose, name finds place in the concerned Ward and in the electoral roll of the said panchayat/constituency. Only on account of the fact that the name of the respondent no.10 finds at two places i.e. firstly; the place where she had been residing with her father and secondly; after her marriage she started residing with her husband, on such ground her claim cannot be rejected. All the more, this fact cannot be ignored that respondent no.10 is having 63.29% marks whereas the petitioner is only 41% marks. So far the claim of the petitioner with respect to the two date of birth is concerned, neither any evidence has been placed on record nor this issue was raised before the Aam Sabha, District Programme Officer or District Magistrate, Purnea and such new plea cannot be raised at this stage without cogent and substantive evidence. 7. Mr. Sinha, learned Advocate for the respondent no.10 has submitted that since the disputed question of fact has been raised with regard to Anganwadi Sevika, who does not hold the civil post, in such circumstances, the writ petition itself is not Patna High Court CWJC No.10078 of 2020 dt.22-06-2026 6/8 maintainable. Heavy reliance has been placed on a Bench decision of this Court in the case of Rubi Kumari Vs. The State of Bihar & Others (C.W.J.C. No. 3494 of 2020). Further order of this Court in the case of Jyoti Kumari Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors., reported in 2025(1) PLJR 13, as also the order passed in C.W.J.C. No. 8126 of 2023 (Mamta Devi Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.), which came to be disposed of vide order dated 28.11.2023. He also endorsed the submission led by Mr. Ojha, learned Advocate for the State. 8. Before parting with this case, it would be pertinent to state here that there is no bar to maintain the writ petition, in the matter of selection of Anganwadi Sevika/Sahaika, if the point has been raised with regard to applicability to the relevant clause of the concerned scheme and there is patent illegality in the procedures adopted by the authorities concern, which resulted into miscarriage of justice. It hardly needs to be emphasized that in all these cases, the Court while exercising the discretionary jurisdiction taking note of the disputed question of facts and the nature of the post and duty assigned under the scheme did not entertain the writ petition. In view thereof, we do not find any force in the submissions with regard to the maintainability of the writ petition, in the facts of the present Patna High Court CWJC No.10078 of 2020 dt.22-06-2026 7/8 case. 9. To examine the merit of this case, we directly come to Clause-5 of the Anganwadi Sevika/Sahayika Appointment Guidelines, 2016, which reads as follows: “5. ernkrk ,oa fuoklh gksus dh ;ksX;rk& vk¡xuokM+h lsfodk @ lgkf;dk ds vH;FkhZ dks eSfiax iath ds vuq:i lacaf/kr okMZ dk fuoklh ,oa ernkrk gksuk vfuok;Z gksxk vFkok vkosfndk ds ifr@'olqj dk uke lacaf/kr okMZ dh ernkrk lwph esa vafdr gksuk vfuok;Z gksxkA” 10. On careful consideration of the aforenoted clause, this Court finds substance in the submission advanced by the learned Advocate for the State that there is no specific bar with regard to consideration of the candidature of the daughter of the Ward. The aforenoted Clause is used in conjunctive way, but with clear stipulation that a candidate must be resident and voter of the concerned ward or the name of her husband and father-in- law must be find place in the electoral roll. The respondent no.10 admittedly the daughter of the Rajeshwar Das and had been residing in Guleliya Tola where the entire selection process has taken place and based upon the material that she is the resident of Guleliya Tola and her name finds place in the electoral roll, as she also belongs to the members of the majority of the caste, she applied for the post of Anganwadi Sevika and secured higher Patna High Court CWJC No.10078 of 2020 dt.22-06-2026 8/8 position in the merit list, having obtained 63.29%. This Court is not persuaded to interfere in the order passed by the District Programme Officer, Purnea as well as the order passed by the District Magistrate, Purnea. 11. In view of the aforesaid discussions, this Court does not find any reason to interfere in the impugned order. Accordingly, the present writ petition sans any merit, fit to be dismissed. uday/- (Harish Kumar, J) AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 23.06.2026 Transmission Date NA