Patna High Court
Manwara KhatoonversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- PARTHA SARTHY
Holding
The Court held that the 2016 ICDS guidelines require exclusion of optional subject marks, and since the respondent obtained higher adjusted marks, the Divisional Commissioner’s order was correct.
Summary
Manwara Khatoon applied for the post of Anganbadi Sevika and was initially appointed by the District Programme Officer, who set aside the appointment of Firoza Khatoon (respondent no.7). Firoza filed a revision before the Divisional Commissioner, who reversed the District Officer’s order, citing the 2016 ICDS guidelines that require exclusion of optional subject marks in calculating merit. The petitioner challenged this revision by filing a writ petition, arguing that all subject marks should be considered and that she had a higher total score. The State and the Madarsa Board contended that the guidelines expressly exclude optional marks, and the merit list prepared by the authorities reflected this exclusion, showing Firoza with a higher adjusted score. The Court examined the 2016 guidelines, the merit list, and the parties' submissions, concluding that the correct procedure was followed and the respondent’s higher adjusted marks justified the revision. Consequently, the Court found no error in the Divisional Commissioner’s order and dismissed the writ petition.
Issues considered
- Whether marks obtained in the optional subject should be excluded while calculating merit for Anganbadi Sevika appointments under the 2016 ICDS guidelines.
- Whether the Divisional Commissioner’s order setting aside the District Programme Officer’s appointment order is legally valid.
- Whether the writ petition challenging the revision order should be entertained.
Subjects
- Anganbadi Sevika
- Merit list
- Optional subject marks
- ICDS guidelines
- Writ petition
- Revision order
- Appointment procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1004 of 2023
======================================================
Manwara Khatoon W/o Abu Taleb, Resident of Village- Marangi Tola, P.S.-
Barari, District- Katihar.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secreary, Social Welfare
Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Director Integrated Child Development Services, Bihar, Patna.
3. The Divisional Commissioner, Purnea.
4. The District Magistrate, Katihar.
5. The District Programme Officer, Katihar.
6. The Child Development Project Officer, Barari, District-Katihar.
7. Firoza Khatoon, W/o Abdul Rahim, Resident of Village-Marangi Tola, P.S.-
Barari, District-Katihar.
8. The Bihar State Madarsa Education Board, Patna, through its Secretary, P.S.
and District- Patna.
9. The Examination Controller, Bihar State Madarsa Education Board, Patna,
District- Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. D.K.Sinha, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Bhola Prasad, Advocate
For the State : Mr. S.K. Mandal, S.C.-3
Mr. Bipin Kumar, AC to SC-3
For the Madarsa Board : Md. Aslam Ansari, Advocate
For the Private Respondent : Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY
ORAL ORDER
12 23-03-2026 Heard learned Senior counsel for the petitioner,
learned counsel for the State of Bihar, learned counsel for the
Bihar State Madarsa Board and learned counsel for the
respondent no.7.
2. The petitioner has filed the instant writ application
praying for quashing the order dated 22.11.2022 passed by the
Patna High Court CWJC No.1004 of 2023(12) dt.23-03-2026
2/7
Divisional Commissioner, Purnea whereby Anganbari Revision
Case no.4 of 2022 filed by the respondent no.7 was allowed and
the order dated 24.1.2022 passed by the District Programme
Officer, Katihar in Miscellaneous Anganbari Appeal no.86 of
2018 was set aside.
3. The relevant facts in brief are that on the
respondent authorities coming out with a notice for filling up the
vacancy of Anganbari Sevika of Centre no.288, Ward no.9 in
Jagdishpur Gram Panchayat, Barari, Katihar, both the petitioner
and the respondent no.7 filed their applications. The respondents
proceeded to prepare the merit list and finally the respondent
no.7 was appointed.
4. The petitioner filed Miscellaneous Anganbari
Appeal no.86 of 2018 which was considered by the District
Programme Officer, Katihar. By his order dated 24.1.2022, the
District Programme Officer was pleased to allow the said
appeal, setting aside the appointment of respondent no.7 and
directed for appointment of the petitioner on the same.
5. The respondent no.7 being affected by the said
order, preferred Anganbari Revision no.4 of 2022 before the
Divisional Commissioner, Purnea. By order dated 22.11.2022,
the Divisional Commissioner was pleased to allow the revision
Patna High Court CWJC No.1004 of 2023(12) dt.23-03-2026
3/7
preferred by the respondent no.7 and set aside the order dated
24.1.2022 passed by the District Programme Officer, Katihar.
6. Aggrieved by the order dated 22.11.2022, the
petitioner has preferred the instant writ application against the
same.
7. It is submitted by learned Senior counsel appearing
for the petitioner that on perusal of the order dated 24.1.2022, it
would transpire that the Incharge Medical Officer has submitted
a report dated 20.4.2018 mentioning therein that the respondent
no.7 who was working on the post of Aasha had on an earlier
occasion given her date of birth as 17.8.1972 and now in her
application for appointment as Anganbari Sevika as 31.3.1990.
Further in reference to the order impugned passed by the
Divisional Commissioner, it is submitted that the question
which was to be decided was as to whether while considering
the marks obtained by the applicants in the matriculation,
whether the marks obtained in all the subjects were to be
considered or the marks obtained in the optional subject was to
be left out and thereafter the remaining marks were to be
considered. It is submitted that this Court had directed the
Madarsa Board to file their affidavit. Referring to Annexure R/1
to the supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.1004 of 2023(12) dt.23-03-2026
4/7
Madarsa Board, it is submitted that the Examination Controller
of the Bihar State Madarsa Board, Patna has categorically
mentioned therein that marks obtained in all the subjects
including the optional subjects are to be considered as
compulsory. It is thus submitted that once marks obtained in all
the subjects are taken into consideration, the petitioner having
obtained 793 marks against respondent no.7 who obtained 792
marks, the petitioner should be appointed setting aside the order
passed by the Divisional Commissioner.
8. In response, learned counsel for the State of Bihar
referring to the counter affidavit filed submits that as per the
guidelines issued by the ICDS, Bihar, the same clearly spells out
that while considering the qualification of matriculation or
equivalent examination in appointment of Anganbari Sevika, the
marks obtained in the matriculation examination is to be
considered after excluding the marks in the extra/optional paper.
9. Learned counsel appearing for the private
respondent agreeing with the submissions made by learned
counsel for the State of Bihar submits that excluding the marks
obtained in the optional paper, the respondent no.7 having
obtained 734 marks in comparison to the petitioner’s 728 marks,
there is no illegality in the order of the Divisional Commissioner
Patna High Court CWJC No.1004 of 2023(12) dt.23-03-2026
5/7
setting aside the order of the District Programme Officer and
appointing the respondent no.7. It is submitted that there is no
merit in the writ application and the same be dismissed.
10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
the material on record.
11. The matter relates to appointment of Anganbari
Sevika at Centre no.288, Ward no.9 in Jagdishpur Gram
Panchayat, Barari, Katihar. Bereft of unnecessary details, it may
be observed here that the Guidelines issued in the year 2016
applicable in the case deals with the manner of appointment of
Anganbari Sevika. Clause 4 thereof which deals with
educational qualification clearly states that the applicant should
be matriculate or having an equivalent educational qualification
which shall be considered in selection, taking into consideration
the marks obtained therein excluding the additional/additional
subject meaning that the marks obtained in the optional subject
is to be excluded while preparing the merit list.
12. Coming to the facts of the instant case, it is not in
dispute that while the total marks obtained by the petitioner and
the respondent no.7 are 793 and 792 respectively, excluding the
marks obtained in the optional subjects, the marks obtained by
the petitioner and the respondent no.7 would come to 728 and
Patna High Court CWJC No.1004 of 2023(12) dt.23-03-2026
6/7
734.
13. It would be relevant to mention here that after
filing of the applications, a merit list was prepared by the
respondent authorities and which has been brought on record as
annexure to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the
respondent no.7. It transpires from the same that the authorities
concerned prepared the said merit list in accordance with the
2016 Guidelines excluding the marks obtained by the candidates
in the optional subject. The name of the respondent no.7 which
figures at sl. no.4 is shown to have obtained 734/1100 ie 66.72%
marks and the petitioner who is at sl. no.9 is shown to have
obtained 728/1100 ie 66.18% marks.
14. Taking into consideration clause 4 of the 2016
Guidelines together with the merit list, there being no doubt in
the opinion of this Court about the respondent no.7 having
obtained higher marks than the petitioner, the Commissioner,
Purnea Division by the order impugned rightly allowed the
revision preferred by the respondent no.7 and set aside the order
dated 24.1.2022 passed by the District Programme Officer,
Katihar.
15. The Court finds no error in the order dated
22.11.2022 of the Divisional Commissioner, Purnea and no
Patna High Court CWJC No.1004 of 2023(12) dt.23-03-2026
7/7
merit in the instant case.
16. The writ application is dismissed.
(Partha Sarthy, J)
Saurabh/-
U
Checking your session…