IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.15294 of 2013 ====================================================== Sunaina Kumari W/O Bhagwan Mandal R/O Village- Mohanpur Diyara, P.S.- Nathnagar, District- Bhagalpur. ... ... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. Bhagalpur Commissioner, Bhagalpur 3. District Magistrate, Bhagalpur 4. Child Development Project Officer, Nathnagar, District- Bhagalpur 5. Sunita Kumari W/O Akchhay Kumar Sharma R/O Village- Mohanpur Diyara, P.S.- Shankarpur, District- Bhagalpur ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ranjan Kumar Jha, Advocate Mr. Rana Pratap Singh, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Kamlesh Kishore, AC to SC-12 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 5 20-08-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for respondents-State. No one appears on behalf of respondent no.5. 2. This writ application has been filed for quashing the order dated 22.02.2013 passed in Bhagalpur Miscellaneous (Anganwari) Appeal Case No.58 of 2012-13 (Sunita Kumari vs. District Magistrate, Bhagalpur & Ors.) whereby and whereunder the Commissioner, Bhagalpur has set aside the order dated 24.08.2012 passed by the District Magistrate, Bhagalpur, which was in favour of the petitioner and has been further pleased to order for afresh appointment for the post of Anganwari Sevika. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Patna High Court CWJC No.15294 of 2013(5) dt.20-08-2025 2/7 ‘Aam Sabha’ was convened on 17.01.2011 and the petitioner was selected for the post of Anganwari Sevika vide letter no.39 dated 25.01.2011. There were four candidates and the petitioner was found eligible as she had got the highest marks. The respondent no.5 did not belong to the Poshak Chhetra of the Anganwari Kendra and accordingly, the District Magistrate, Bhagalpur by order dated 24.08.2012 cancelled the appointment of respondent no.5 and directed that the petitioner should be appointed in her place. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the order passed by the District Magistrate dated 24.08.2012 (Annexure-4) is a reasoned and speaking order and finding of fact has been given in favour of the petitioner to the extent that the petitioner falls under Poshak Chhetra. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that despite the order of the District Magistrate being a reasoned and speaking order based on appraisal of documents, the Divisional Commissioner, Bhagalpur without giving any cogent reasoning has unnecessarily interfered with the said order and ordered for appointment for the post of Anganwari Sevika to be done afresh as per the guidelines of the State Government. 4. Being aggrieved the petitioner has, therefore, challenged the order dated 22.02.2013 passed by the Patna High Court CWJC No.15294 of 2013(5) dt.20-08-2025 3/7 Commissioner, Bhagalpur Division, Bhagalpur passed in Bhagalpur Miscellaneous (Anganwari) Appeal Case No.58 of 2012-13 (Annexure-7). 5. Per contra; learned counsel appearing for respondent-State submits that the order passed by the Commissioner, Bhagalpur Division, Bhagalpur, which has been impugned in the present writ application is in accordance with law and therefore, should not be interfered with. 6. The operative portion of the order passed by the District Magistrate, Bhagalpur in favour of the petitioner is quoted herein below for needful: “mHk; i{kksa ds fo}ku vf/koDrkvksa dks lfoLrkj iwoZd lqukA vfHkys[k esa miyC/k dkxtkrksa ,oa fuEu U;k;ky; vfHkys[k@lafpdk dk voyksdu fd;k vkSj lkFk gh mijksDr fLFkfr;ksa o ifjfLFkfr;ksa ds leh{kksijkUr varrksxRok bl fu’d’kZ ij igwaprk gwa fd izLrkfor vkaxuokM+h dsUnz vEcsndj pkSiky] eksguiqj fn;kjk ds lsfodk in ds p;u esa vfu;ferrk ifjyf{kr gksrk gS] ftldh iqf’V vkosfndk lquSuk dqekjh ds vkjksfir vkoklh; izek.k i= dks vapy vf/kdkjh] ukFkuxj }kjk tkapksijkUr lgh ik;k x;k gSA tks vkosfndk ds iks’kd {ks= dk gksus dks lR;kfir djrk gSA nwljk vge ckr ;g gS fd foi{kh ds dFkukuqlkj vkosfndk ds llqj tokgj eaMy dk uke eSafiax iath esa dzekad 20 ij vafdr ugha gS cfYd nwljs tokgj eaMy] firk&jke[ksykou Patna High Court CWJC No.15294 of 2013(5) dt.20-08-2025 4/7 eaMy dk uke gSA foi{kh ds bl dFku ds lR;kiu ds lanHkZ esa mDr eSafiax iath dk voyksdu fd;kA voyksdu ls Li’V gqvk fd eSafiax iath esa dzekad 20 esa tks tokgj eaMy dk uke mfYyf[kr gS mlesa muds firk ds uke dk mYys[k ugha gSA mDr eSafiax iath esa ftrus ukeksa dk mYys[k fd;k x;k fdUgha ds firk ds uke dk mYys[k ugha gSA blfy, foi{kh dk ;g nkok gS fd eSafiax iath esa dzekad 20 ij nwljs tokgj eaMy] firk&jke [ksykou eaMy dk uke gSA ;g dguk ljklj xyr gS D;ksafd bl laca/k esa foi{kh lquhrk nsoh }kjk dksbZ Bksl lk{; o izek.k izLrqr ugha fd;k x;k gSA rhljk vge rF; ;g gS fd vkosfndk lquSuk dqekjh dk es/kk lwph esa es/kk vad 62-42% gS ftlesa baVj dk 5 vad vkosfndk ds dFkukuqlkj ugha tksM+k x;k gS] ftldh iqf’V vke lHkk iath ds voyksdu ls gksrh gSA mDr vad dks tksM+us ds mijkUr vkosfndk dk 67-42% gksrk gS tks lcls vf/kd gSA rn~uqlkj vkosfndk dk es/kk lwfp esa loksZPp vad gS ,oa vkaxuckM+h iks’kd {ks= ds vUrxZr vkrh gS] tks vkaxuokM+h ekxZnf”kZdk ds vuqlkj lsfodk p;u dh vgrkZ dks iw.kZ djrh gSA vLrq foi{kh lquhrk dqekjh dk p;u voS/k izrhr gksrk gSA ftldh iqf’V rRdkyhu ftyk izksxzke inkf/kdkjh] Hkkxyiqj }kjk Hkh vius izfrosnu esa rRlaca/kh ekeys dh xgu tkap iM+rky ds mijkUr fu’d’kZr% ^p;fur lsfodk lquhrk dqekjh ds p;u dks ftykf/kdkjh egksn;~ ls jn~n djok;h tk ldrh gSA^ dk mYys[k fd;k x;k gS] tks vfu;ferrk dks Li’V djrk gSA vr% p;fur lsfodk lquhrk dqekjh] ifr&v{k; dqekj dks p;u eqDr djrs gq, vkosfndk lquSuk dqekjh] ifr&Hkxoku eaMy] lk0&eksguiqj] Patna High Court CWJC No.15294 of 2013(5) dt.20-08-2025 5/7 fn;kjk Fkkuk&ukFkuxj] ftyk&Hkkxyiqj dks izLrkfor vEcsndj pkSiky] eksguiqj fn;kjk ds lsfodk in ds fy, p;u fd;k tkrk gSA cky fodkl ifj;kstuk inkf/kdkjh] ukFkuxj dks funs”k fn;k tkrk gS fd vkosfndk lquSuk dqekjh dks fu;ekuqlkj fu;qfDr i= fuxZr djsaA vkns”k dh izfr lanfHkZr dks vuqikyukFkZ HksatsA” 7. From the above finding of fact given by the District Magistrate, Bhagalpur on appraisal of the documents, it is patently clear that the District Magistrate had given a defenative finding that the petitioner falls under the Poshak Chhetra and since was having higher marks than respondent no.5, therefore, the petitioner was eligible to be appointed in place of respondent no.5. A proper reasoning was also given in support of this finding of fact. However, from a bare perusal of the impugned order passed by the Commissioner, Bhagalpur Division, Bhagalpur, it appears that the Commissioner without finding any perversity or illegality passed by the District Magistrate has abruptly come to the conclusion that there was existing a conflict between the report of the C.D.P.O and the Circle Officer. The operative portion of the impugned order is quoted herein below for needful. “On going through the details of the case, it is not very clear whether both the appellant and respondent No. 4 are residing in the Poshak Chhetra or not. The reports of the CDPO and Patna High Court CWJC No.15294 of 2013(5) dt.20-08-2025 6/7 Anchal Adhikari contradict each other. There are also doubts regarding the preparation of mapping register. In the circumstances, it is hereby ordered that the appointment for the post of Anganwari Sevika is to be done afresh as per the latest guidelines of the Government. The CDPO, Nathnagar shall take steps to do the selection at the earliest. The appellant and the respondent No. 4 are free to apply for the selection. The case is hereby disposed.” 8. This Court is of the view that when the District Magistrate had given a finding of fact based on appraisal of documents available before him in favour of the petitioner then the same could only have been dislodged by the Commissioner after giving a proper reasoning as to how the finding of fact given by the District Magistrate was either wrong or perverse or illegal. No such reasoning has been recorded in the impugned order by the Commissioner and without giving any such reasoning the Commissioner has abruptly come to the conclusion that there exists a conflict between the report of the CDPO and the Circle Officer, whereas it is clear from the order of the District Magistrate that the District Magistrate had specifically recorded the finding that the petitioner falls under Poshak Chhetra and was having higher marks. 9. Under these circumstances, the impugned order passed by the Commissioner dated 22.02.2013 (Annexure-7) Patna High Court CWJC No.15294 of 2013(5) dt.20-08-2025 7/7 cannot be sustained and hence it is set aside and the order passed by the District Magistrate, Bhagalpur dated 24.08.2012 stands revived. 10. The writ application is accordingly allowed. Pending I.As, if any will be deemed to have been disposed of. Prakash Narayan (Alok Kumar Sinha, J) U