Patna High Court
Mira DeviversusThe State Of Bihar and Ors
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- PARTHA SARTHY
Holding
The court held that respondent No.6's appointment was valid as she possessed higher matriculation marks, and the petitioner's challenge was without merit.
Summary
The petitioner, Mira Devi, challenged the cancellation of her appointment as Anganwadi Sevika and the selection of respondent No.6, alleging that the latter had submitted a forged matriculation mark‑sheet showing inflated marks. The District Programme Officer initially favored the petitioner but later cancelled her appointment, and the Collector upheld that cancellation. The petitioner argued that the forged mark‑sheet should invalidate respondent No.6's selection. The respondents contended that the original mark‑sheet of respondent No.6 showed 200/500 marks, higher than the petitioner's 157/500, and that the alleged forged sheet was never produced. The Bihar School Examination Board verified that the 290/500 sheet was not genuine, but the original 200/500 sheet was valid. The court found that respondent No.6 legitimately had higher marks and was rightfully appointed, and the petitioner failed to demonstrate any illegality in the impugned orders. Consequently, the writ application was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether the cancellation of the petitioner's appointment and the affirmation of respondent No.6's selection were illegal.
- Whether the alleged forged mark‑sheet of respondent No.6 affects the validity of her appointment.
- Whether the authorities erred in rejecting the petitioner's application for Anganwadi Sevika.
Subjects
- Anganwadi Sevika
- merit list
- matriculation marks
- forged mark‑sheet
- writ petition
- selection process
- administrative law
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1484 of 2017
======================================================
Mira Devi, Wife of Anil Yadav, Resident of Village- Nimuya, P.S. Majhagarh,
District- Gopalganj.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Social Welfare Department, Govt.
of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Director, I.C.D.S. Bihar, Patna.
3. The Collector, Gopalganj.
4. The District Programme Officer, I.C.D.S. Gopalganj
5. The Child Development Project Officer, Majhagarh, District-Gopalganj
6. Indu Kumari @ Indu Devi, Wife of Ravindra Yadav Resident of Village and
P.O. Nimuiya, P.S. Majhagarh, District-Gopalganj.
7. The Bihar School Examination Board, Patna through its Secretary.
8. The Deputy Secretary (Vigilance) Bihar Examination Board, Patna
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Md. Anisur Rahman, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Sunil Kr. Mandal, SC-3
Mr. Arjun Prasad, AC to SC-3
For the Resp. No.6 : Mr. Nagendra Rai, Advocate
Mr. Navin Nikunj, Advocate
For the Resp. Nos.7&8 : Ms. Surya Nilambari, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 19-01-2026
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
SC-3 for the State, learned counsel for the private respondent
no.6 and learned counsel for the Bihar School Examination
Board (‘BSEB’ in short).
2. The petitioner has filed the instant application for
the following reliefs :-
Patna High Court CWJC No.1484 of 2017 dt.19-01-2026
2/9
“A. For issuance of appropriate
writ/order or direction quashing the order dated
24.5.2016 passed in Anganbari Appeal no. 6/15
by the Collector, Gopalganj by which the appeal
filed by the petitioner has been dismissed and the
order dated 27.11.2015 (Communicated through
Memo no. 1255 dated 30.11.2015) by the
respondent no. 4 has been affirmed as contained
Annexure-13 to this writ application.
B. For issuance of appropriate
writ/order or direction quashing on dated
27.11.2015 and communicated through Memo
no. 1255 dated 30.11.2015 by the Respondent no.
4 by which the application filed by the
Respondent no. 6 against the selection of the
petitioner as Angabari Sevika has been allowed
and the selection of the petitioner as Anganbari
Sevika at the said Centre has been cancelled as
contained in Annexure-13 to this writ
application.
C. For issuance of appropriate
writ/order or direction commanding the
Respondents authorities to engage/select the
petitioner as Anganbari Sevika at Centre no. 207
of Nimuya Bhrigun Rai ka Tola in village
Nimuiya P.S. Majhagarh, District- Gopalganj
after removing the Respondent no. 6.
D. For any other relief or reliefs for
which the petitioner is found entitled in the
opinion of this Hon’ble court.”
3. The case of the petitioner in brief is that in the
Patna High Court CWJC No.1484 of 2017 dt.19-01-2026
3/9
process of selection of Anganwadi Sevika for Centre no.207,
Nimuiya Bhrigun Rai ka Tola in gram panchayat Nimuiya,
Block-Majhagarh in the district of Gopalganj, applications were
invited in the year 2012, however the selection process was
postponed. Once again, applications were invited for
appointment of Anganwadi Sevika in the year 2015 pursuant to
which the petitioner, respondent no.6 as also one Rina Devi
applied. Rina Devi belonging to the EBC category while the
anganwadi centre relating to the BC category, her application
was not considered.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner that pursuant to the applications invited in the year
2012, the respondent no.6 had submitted her matriculation
mark-sheet wherein she had secured 200/500 marks. However,
on fresh applications having been invited in the year 2014, the
mark-sheet submitted by respondent no.6 showed that she had
secured 290/500. Pursuant to complaints filed by the petitioner,
a report with respect to genuineness of the mark-sheet was
obtained from the BSEB and it transpired that the mark-sheet
showing the respondent no.6 to have obtained 290/500 marks
was not as per the records in the Board.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
Patna High Court CWJC No.1484 of 2017 dt.19-01-2026
4/9
though by order dated 10.11.2015 (Annexure-11), the District
Programme Officer, Gopalganj decided the matter in favour of
the petitioner, however the same authority subsequently by
order dated 27.11.2015 cancelled the appointment of the
petitioner. The appeal preferred by the petitioner before the
Collector, Gopalganj vide Anganwadi Appeal Case no.6 of 2015
was rejected vide order dated 24.5.2016.
6. It is against the order dated 27.11.2015 passed by
the District Programme Officer, Gopalganj and rejection of the
appeal vide order dated 24.5.2016 passed in Anganwadi Appeal
Case no.6 of 2015 by the Collector, Gopalganj that the instant
writ application has been preferred.
7. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner that the subject matter of the instant case being the
appointment of Anganwadi Sevika pursuant to the applications
invited vide advertisement in the year 2014 wherein the
respondent no.6 submitted a forged mark-sheet showing her to
have obtained 290/500 marks, both the authorities i.e. the
District Programme Officer, Gopalganj as also the Collector,
Gopalganj committed an error in rejecting the application and
the appeal preferred by the petitioner. The orders impugned are
not sustainable and as such the writ application be allowed and
Patna High Court CWJC No.1484 of 2017 dt.19-01-2026
5/9
the respondents be directed to appoint the petitioner as
Anganwadi Sevika.
8. The application is opposed by learned counsel
appearing for the respondent no.6. Learned counsel for
respondent no.6 submitted that pursuant to the process of
appointment started in the year 2012, both the petitioner as also
the respondent no.6 had filed their applications along with their
mark-sheet of matriculation. While the respondent no.6 had
secured 200/500 marks, the petitioner had secured 157/500
marks. Thus there was no dispute that the respondent no.6 had
secured more marks in her matriculation examination and the
appointments on the post of Anganwadi Sevika being made on
the marks obtained in the matriculation examination, there was
also no doubt that the respondent no.6 would be appointed. It is
further submitted that the appointment pursuant to the 2012
advertisement not having proceeded, fresh applications were
invited in the year 2014. So far as the
mark-sheet showing the respondent no.6 to have obtained
290/500 marks is concerned, learned counsel submits that it is
the categorical case of the respondent that the said mark-sheet
was never produced by the respondent no.6 along with her
application. Some interpolation has been done in her
Patna High Court CWJC No.1484 of 2017 dt.19-01-2026
6/9
mark-sheet. In any case, the respondent no.6 succeeding over
the petitioner on the basis of her original mark-sheet, there was
no reason for the respondent no.6 to even attempt any
interpolation as has been alleged by the petitioner. Taking these
factors into consideration, the respondent-District Programme
Officer as also the respondent-Collector rightly decided the
anganwadi case and appeal in favour of the respondent no.6 by
the orders which are impugned herein. It is submitted that there
is no merit in the instant writ application and the same be
dismissed.
9. Learned counsel appearing for the BSEB in
reference to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Board
and more particularly paragraph no.9 thereof submits that the
certificates of the respondent no.6 were sent to the Board for
verification. As per the verification report, the mark-sheet of
respondent no.6 as contained in Annexure-6 and 6/B to the writ
petition were found to be true and correct mark-sheets issued by
the Board. So far as the mark-sheet annexed as Annexure-6/A to
the writ petition is concerned, the figures therein do not match
with the entries maintained in the records available with the
Board. Thus in the opinion of the Board, the mark-sheet at
Annexure-6/A is not genuine.
Patna High Court CWJC No.1484 of 2017 dt.19-01-2026
7/9
10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
the material on record.
11. The relevant facts in brief are that pursuant to the
respondents coming out with an advertisement in the year 2012
for appointment on the post of Anganwadi Sevika, both the
petitioner as also the respondent no.6 applied. It is not in dispute
that appointments as Anganwadi Sevika is mainly done on the
marks obtained by the candidates in the matriculation
examination.
12. Pursuant to the petitioner and the respondent no.6
having filed their applications in the year 2012, a merit list was
prepared which has been brought on record as Annexure-R-2 to
the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no.6. A
perusal of the said merit list would show that while the
petitioner herein secured 157/500 marks and had total merit
points of 31.4, the respondent no.6 in her matriculation
examination secured 200/500 marks and secured 47 merit
points. Thus the respondent no.6 was placed at serial no.1, while
the petitioner was at serial no.3.
13. As stated above, the process of selection in the
year 2012 not having gone to its logical conclusion, the
respondents once again invited applications for appointment on
Patna High Court CWJC No.1484 of 2017 dt.19-01-2026
8/9
the post of Anganwadi Sevika in the year 2015.
14. It may be observed here that so far as the
petitioner and respondent no.6 are concerned, both were aware
with their respective marks in their matriculation and the merit
points that they had secured. On the basis of the respective
certificates/mark-sheet, there remained no doubt that out of
these two, it would be the respondent no.6 who would be
selected for appointment as Anganwadi Sevika.
15. It may be noted here that the complaint against
respondent no.6 that she had produced another mark-sheet
showing her to have obtained 290/500 marks was filed by the
petitioner. It is this mark-sheet of the respondent no.6 which on
verification with the respondent-Board that it transpired that the
same was not correct and the figures mentioned herein did not
match with the records maintained by the Board.
16. It is the categorical case of respondent no.6 that
the so called mark-sheet showing her to have secured 290/500
marks was never produced by her along with her application.
Some interpolation has been done in her original mark-sheet. It
is for the reason that even with the marks shown in her original
mark-sheet i.e. 200/500, it was the respondent no.6 who was
succeeding and came to be appointed.
Patna High Court CWJC No.1484 of 2017 dt.19-01-2026
9/9
17. The Court finds substance in the submissions
made by respondent no.6. Even as per the original mark-sheet
produced by her, the respondent no.6 having secured 200/500
marks which is more than 157/500 secured by the petitioner, the
respondent no.6 was rightly selected and appointed as an
Anganwadi Sevika.
18. The petitioner has not been able to show any
illegality in the orders impugned dated 27.11.2015 of the
District Programme Officer, I.C.D.S., Gopalganj or in the order
dated 24.5.2016 passed in Anganwadi Appeal Case no.6 of 2015
by the Collector, Gopalganj.
19. The Court finds no merit in the instant application
and the same is dismissed.
(Partha Sarthy, J)
avinash/-
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date 20.01.2026
Transmission Date
Checking your session…