IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6635 of 2026 ====================================================== Puja Kumari W/o Harendra Ram, Resident of Village Dhanaw Khalsa, P.O. Marojhiyan, P.S.- Nasariganj Panchayat Etimha, District- Rohtas. ... ... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The District Magistrate Rohtas, Sasaram. 3. The Child Development Project officer Nasriganj, Rohtas. 4. The Block Child Project Officer Etimha, Rohtas. 5. Srimati Urmila Kumari, wife of Sandeep Kumar, Resident of Village- Dhanaw Khalsa, Ward no.10,P.O- Marojiya, P.S-Nasirganj, Panchayat- Itimha, Dist.-Rohtas. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ramesh Kumar Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Shiv Kumar (AC to GA-03) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER 2 30-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 2. The present writ petition has been filed for the following relief/s:- “I. That women's & child Development Project quash the final selection letter dated 5-9-2020 prepared for the post anganbari of sevika and sahaika system (hereinafter referred as I.C.D.S as well an final List suchi and on the basis of the said final list I.C.D.S to appoint the private respondent on the post of sevika under the scheme of child Development scheme. There was Aam Sabha Patna High Court CWJC No.6635 of 2026(2) dt.30-04-2026 2/3 under the presidentship at Mukhiya at Gram Panchayat in the year 2019 and in the presence of the member, Sarpanch and Villagers favor of the Private Respondent No.- 5 was selected as Sevika under the Dhanawn Khalsa Gram Panchayat Police station- Nasariganj on career. The petitioner filed application to the post of Sevika and her selection was duly informed by the Mukhiya and other in the meeting of the Aam Sabha but unfortunately the child Development Project officer nasriganj Rohtas as well as the District magistrate Rohtas at Sasaram did not consider the petitioner. II. For grant of any other relief or reliefs upon which the petitioner is entitled for any other relief or reliefs on the basis at facts as well as Law.” 3. Learned counsel for the State raised preliminary objection and submits that the final selection of private respondent no.5 was made in the year 2020 and the same has been challenged by the petitioner after six years directly before this Hon’ble Court, which is in violation of the relevant margdarshika applicable to the petitioner. 4. As such, this Court is not inclined to entertain this writ application after six years, in-spite of the fact that rule has Patna High Court CWJC No.6635 of 2026(2) dt.30-04-2026 3/3 already been framed in the relevant margdarshika which the petitioner has not followed. 5. Hence, this writ petition stands dismissed. Divyansh/- (Dr. Anshuman, J) U