Neha KumariversusThe State of Bihar

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                    Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1785 of 2022
     ======================================================
     Neha Kumari Wife of Sri Uday Kumar Resident of Village- Chamanpura,
     P.S.- Baikunthpur, District- Gopalganj.
                                                              ... ... Petitioner/s
                                         Versus
1.    The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Social Welfare
      Department, Bihar, Patna.
2.   Director, I.C.D.S. Social Welfare Department, Bihar, Patna
3.   The Collector, Gopalganj.
4.   District Programe Officer, Gopalganj.
5.   Child Development Project Officer, Baikunthpur Block, District Gopalganj.
6.    Ravita Kumari Wife of Sri Arvind Kumar Resident of Village- Chamanpura,
      P.S.- Baikunthpur, District- Gopalganj.
                                                            ... ... Respondent/s
     ======================================================
     Appearance :
     For the Petitioner/s   :      Mr. Naresh Chandra Verma, Advocate
     For the Respondent/s   :      Smt. Kumari Amrita (GP-3)
     ======================================================
     CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN

                            ORAL JUDGMENT

      Date : 20-01-2026

                     Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

      counsel for the State.

                     2. The present writ petition has been filed for

      quashing of the order dated 08.07.2021 passed by the Collector,

      Gopalganj in Anganbari Appeal Case No. 23 of 2018

      (Annexure-4).

                     3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

      the vacancy was notified for appointment of Anganbari Sevika

      for Centre No. 220, Chamanpura, Yadavtola, under Chamanpura

      Panchayat of Baikunthpur Block of Gopalganj District. Counsel
Patna High Court CWJC No.1785 of 2022 dt.20-01-2026
                                           2/4




         submits that on the basis of marks obtained in the High School

         Examination 2014 from Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, Uttar

         Pradesh, petitioner was having requisite qualification. In the

         Aam Sabha, the name of the petitioner was considered in the

         merit list in which her name was figured at Sr. No.1. Counsel

         further submits that the petitioner was selected for the post of

         Anganbari Sevika and she joined the post and working as

         Anganbari Sevika at Chamanpura Centre No. 220. Counsel

         submits that after selection of the petitioner, private respondent

         no.6 filed Anganbari Appeal Case No. 69 of 2018 before the

         District Programme Officer, Gopalganj stating therein that the

         petitioner has passed matriculation examination from Bihar

         School Examination Board, Patna in 2nd Division and she had

         only 46.2% marks, whereas, the private respondent no.6 had

         67.4% marks in matriculation examination, and therefore, she

         should be selected in place of the petitioner. Counsel further

         submits that before the D.P.O, Gopalganj, contest took place and

         the said Anganbari Appeal Case No. 69 of 2018 was rejected on

         22.05.2018. Thereafter, the private respondent no.6 preferred 2nd

         appeal bearing Anganbari Appeal Case No. 23 of 2018 before

         the Collector, Gopalganj, in which final order has been passed

         on 08.07.2021 and the said Anganbari Appeal Case No. 23 of
Patna High Court CWJC No.1785 of 2022 dt.20-01-2026
                                           3/4




         2018 was allowed in favour of the private respondent no.6.

         Counsel further submits that the case of the petitioner has not

         been considered at all and it is his case that the petitioner passed

         her matriculation from Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad in the year

         2014 and marks obtained in the Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad,

         U.P is the basis for appointment of the petitioner on the post of

         Anganbari Sevika. But, instead thereof, the Collector, Gopalganj

         has not considered the case of the petitioner and instead thereof,

         the forgery done at the instance of respondent no.6 has been

         taken into consideration. Therefore, he submits that interference

         is required from this Hon’ble Court in the order passed by the

         Collector, Gopalganj dated 08.07.2021 in Anganbari Appeal

         Case No. 23 of 2018.

                         4. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand

         submits that the order passed by the Collector, Gopalganj is

         absolutely in accordance with law as the mark sheet provided by

         the petitioner was verified from the Bihar School Examination

         Board and thereafter, the decision for removal of the petitioner

         has taken place. He submits that in the operative part of the

         order, the Collector has categorically indicated the complete

         circumstance in which the decision against the petitioner has

         taken place.
             Patna High Court CWJC No.1785 of 2022 dt.20-01-2026
                                                        4/4




                                      5. After hearing the parties, one document is very

                      much relevant i.e. Medha Suchi which was published for

                      selection and indicates that the petitioner has produced the mark

                      sheet of Bihar School Examination Board. But, even after this

                      publication of Medha Suchi, the petitioner has not raised any

                      objection that she has appeared in the selection by virtue of her

                      marks from the Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, U.P. The

                      selection was completed and she joined and only thereafter, this

                      question has been raised. It is due to this reason that once the

                      said Medha Suchi was wrong then the petitioner ought to raise

                      this point at the earliest.

                                      6. As such, this Court finds that there is no merit in

                      this case and hence, this writ petition stands dismissed.



                                                                   (Dr. Anshuman, J)
Divyansh/-
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE                      NA
Uploading Date              22/01/2026
Transmission Date             NA