Patna High Court
Ponam KumariversusThe State Of Bihar and Ors
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
Holding
The Court held that the respondents' selection complied with the Selection Guidelines 2011 and was not arbitrary or illegal, and therefore dismissed the petition.
Summary
The petitioner, Ponam Kumari, applied for appointment as Anganbari Sevika under the Integrated Child Development Scheme, securing the highest marks in the provisional merit list dated 17‑08‑2013. She was denied appointment on the ground that she did not reside in the designated Poshak Area (Ward No. 14) for Anganbari Centre No. 110, despite her residence being in Ward No. 13 and a certificate from the Gram Panchayat Mukhiya. The petitioner alleged violation of natural justice, arbitrary and malafide conduct, and sought certiorari and mandamus to compel her appointment. The respondents contended that the Selection Guidelines 2011 require permanent residence in the Poshak Area, that a qualified candidate from Ward No. 14 (Kanchan Rai) was available, and that the petitioner was not present at the final Aam Sabha. The Court examined the guidelines, the clarification that Centre No. 110 falls under Ward No. 14, and held that the selection complied with the statutory criteria and was not illegal or arbitrary. Consequently, the Court dismissed the writ petition as devoid of merit.
Issues considered
- Whether the exclusion of the petitioner for not being a resident of the prescribed Poshak Area violates the Selection Guidelines 2011 and principles of natural justice.
- Whether the respondents complied with the mandatory residential requirement under Clause 4.5 of the Selection Guidelines.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to a writ of mandamus directing her appointment despite the existence of an eligible candidate from the required ward.
- Whether the petitioner has an alternative statutory remedy that bars the writ petition.
Subjects
- Anganbari Sevika
- Integrated Child Development Scheme
- Poshak Area
- Selection Guidelines 2011
- Natural Justice
- Writ of Certiorari
- Writ of Mandamus
- Administrative Law
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.21129 of 2014
======================================================
Ponam Kumari W/o - Shri Rajkamal Rai, R/o - Village - Kalyanpur, Basti
Purav Brahampur Das Tola, P.S. - Mohuddin Nagar, Distt. - Samastipur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Social
Welfare, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary, Dept. of Social Welfare, Govt. of Bihar, Patna
3. The Director, Integrated Child Development Services, Dept of Social
Welfare, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
4. The Distt. Magistrate, Samastipur
5. The Incharge Deputy Collector, Distt. Public Girievance Cell, Samastipur.
6. The Distt. Programme Officer, Samastirpu.
7. The Child Development Project, Mohiuddin Nagar, Distt. - Samastipur.
8. Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Raj, Kalyanpur Basti Purav Brahampur Das Tola,
Block - Mohuddin Nagar, Dis
9. Kanchan Rai W/o - Awadhesh Kumar rai R/o Village - Navtol Tanra
Brahampur Das Tola, P.S. - Mohuddin Nagar, Distt. - Samastipur
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Arun Kumar, Advocate
For the State : M/sVivek Prasad, AC to GP 7
Sanjay Kumar, AC to GP 7
Manisha Singh, AC to GP 7
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 11-02-2026
1. The petitioner has filed the instant
application for the following relief:
“i. For issuance of an appropriate
Writ in the nature of of the certiorari for
quashing the decision of the respondent
Child Development Project Officer,
Patna High Court CWJC No.21129 of 2014 dt.11-02-2026
2/11
(C.D.P.O.) Mohiuddin Nagar to the
extent as mentioned in the remarks
column of the merit list dated
17.08.2013 by which the petitioner has
been denied appointment on the post of
Anganbari Sevika and has been ousted
from the selection process on the
ground that she does not come within
the Poshak Area.
ii. For issuance of a Writ in the
nature of Mandamus commanding the
Respondents to appoint the Petitioner
on the post of Anganbari Sevika of
Brahampur Das Tola, Anganbari Centre
No. 110, Ward No. 14, as Petitioner is at
the top of the merit list prepared and
issued by the Child Development
Project Officer, Mohiuddin Nagar,
Samastipur.
iii. For issuance of an appropriate
Writ holding and declaring the decision
of the Child Development Project
Patna High Court CWJC No.21129 of 2014 dt.11-02-2026
3/11
Officer, Mohiuddin Nagar to oust
petitioner from the
selection/appointment on the ground of
being not falling within the Poshak arca
is wholly arbitrary, illegal, malafide and
error of record.
iv. For any other relief/s for which
the petitioner is entitled in the eye of
law in the facts and circumstances of
the Case.”
2. The case of the petitioner culled out
of the Writ petition is that the Integrated Child
Development Scheme (I.C.D.S.) is a centrally
sponsored welfare scheme implemented through
Anganbari Centres for providing essential services
to poor children aged 0–6 years and to pregnant
and lactating women. The appointment of
Anganbari Sevika is governed by departmental
guidelines, under which the selection is made at
the Tola/Ward level through the Aam Sabha, and
preference is given to eligible candidates
belonging to the concerned Poshak Area. It is
Patna High Court CWJC No.21129 of 2014 dt.11-02-2026
4/11
submitted that pursuant to an advertisement
published on 19.07.2013 in the daily newspaper
Dainik Jagran, applications were invited for
appointment of Anganbari Sevika to various
Anganbari Centres, including Centre No. 110. The
petitioner, having fulfilled all eligibility criteria,
applied in the prescribed format. Thereafter, an
Aam Sabha meeting was held, and a provisional
merit list was prepared by the C.D.P.O. on
17.08.2013, wherein the petitioner secured the
highest marks (62.57%) and was placed at the top
of the merit list. It is further submitted that
however, despite her position in the merit list, the
petitioner was denied appointment on the ground
that she does not belong to the Poshak Area of the
concerned Anganbari Centre.
3. It is submitted by the Learned
counsel for the petitioner that Anganbari Centre
No. 110 is situated in Ward No. 13, and that the
said Centre caters jointly to Ward Nos. 13 and 14,
as was done on previous occasions as well. The
petitioner is a resident of Ward No. 13, which is
Patna High Court CWJC No.21129 of 2014 dt.11-02-2026
5/11
supported by a certificate issued by the Mukhiya of
the concerned Gram Panchayat. It is contended
that being aggrieved by her exclusion, the
petitioner has made several representations before
the C.D.P.O., the District Magistrate, and the
District Public Grievance Cell. Although directions
were issued for submission of a report, no effective
or impartial enquiry was conducted. The petitioner
alleges that the so-called enquiry was arbitrary,
based on a limited and selective survey, and that
several eligible residents were deliberately
excluded from the mapping register.
4. It is further contended that no
notice or opportunity of hearing was afforded to
her before recording the adverse finding regarding
her residence. She alleges that the action of the
respondents is arbitrary, malafide, and intended to
favour another candidate, thereby violating the
principles of natural justice.
5. The petitioner alleges malafide
conduct on the part of the C.D.P.O., asserting that
she was deliberately ousted to favour another
Patna High Court CWJC No.21129 of 2014 dt.11-02-2026
6/11
candidate. It is submitted that the impugned order
is non-speaking order without jurisdiction, and
contrary to the scheme guidelines. Accordingly, the
Learned counsel prays to quash of the impugned
decision and for issuance of a Writ of mandamus
directing the respondents to appoint the petitioner
as Anganbari Sevika for Anganbari Centre No. 110.
6. A detailed counter affidavit was filed
on behalf of respondent nos. 6 and 7 denying the
allegation of Writ petition. It is stated that pursuant
to a notice, applications were invited from eligible
candidates for appointment to vacant posts of
Anganbari Sevika from different Panchayats of
district Samastipur, including Centre Code No. 110,
and the selection process was conducted strictly in
accordance with the Selection Guidelines, 2011. A
General Body Meeting (Aam Sabha) for selection of
Anganbari Sevika for Centre Code No. 110, Ward
No. 14 was held, wherein the selection guidelines
of 2011 were duly explained to the participants.
Seven candidates participated in the selection
process. The petitioner was not present in the said
Patna High Court CWJC No.21129 of 2014 dt.11-02-2026
7/11
Aam Sabha.
7. The Learned counsel for the
respondents submits that during the selection
process, a panel was prepared in which the name
of Kanchan Rai (private respondent) appeared at
Serial No. 1 and she was declared selected, as she
was found to be a resident of the concerned
Poshak Area. Though the petitioner had earlier
appeared at Serial No. 1 in the provisional merit list
dated 17.08.2013, she, along with another
candidate, were found not to be a residents of the
concerned Poshak Area, whereas the private
respondent, though placed at Serial No. 3, fulfilled
the mandatory residential requirement.
8. It is further submitted that Clause
4.5 of the Selection Guidelines, 2011 mandates
that an Anganbari Sevika must be a permanent
resident of the concerned Poshak Area, which
reads as follows:
“से ववका को सं बंवधत पोषक के तर् का सथायी वनवासी
होना अवनवायर होगा। इसके वलए सकम प्रावधकार दारा वनगरत
आवासीय प्रमाण पत्र साकय माना जाये गा।”
Patna High Court CWJC No.21129 of 2014 dt.11-02-2026
8/11
9. It is further submitted that on receipt
of complaints made by the petitioner, the C.D.P.O.,
Mohiuddin Nagar, submitted a clarification to the
District Programme Officer, Samastipur vide letter
No. 434 dated 29.08.2013, stating that Centre
Code No. 110 is an old centre which, after ward-
wise delimitation, falls under Ward No. 14. The
earlier Sevika belonged to Ward No. 14, and after
her death, selection was required to be made
strictly made ward-wise, in accordance with the
revised delimitation.
10. The respondents deny the
petitioner’s claim that the centre was jointly meant
for Ward Nos. 13 and 14, which was found to be
baseless, as reflected in the clarification submitted
by the C.D.P.O. dated 29.08.2013. Admittedly the
petitioner is a resident of Ward No. 13, as evident
from her own representations and the residential
certificate issued by the Mukhiya, hence she did
not fulfil the essential eligibility condition under
Clause 4.5 of the Guidelines, which mandates
residence within the concerned Poshak Area, i.e.,
Patna High Court CWJC No.21129 of 2014 dt.11-02-2026
9/11
Ward No. 14.
11. The respondents assert that
although the petitioner secured higher marks than
the private respondent, mere merit alone does not
confer a right to selection in absence of fulfilment
of mandatory eligibility conditions. The notice itself
clearly stipulated that the appointment was for
Ward No. 14, and only in the absence of an eligible
candidate from the said ward candidates from
neighbouring wards would be considered. Since an
eligible candidate from Ward No. 14 was available,
the petitioner could not be considered.
12. It is also submitted that the
petitioner has not availed the alternative statutory
remedy available to her and, therefore, prayed to
dismiss the Writ petition.
13. Heard the Learned counsel for the
petitioner as well as the Learned counsel for the
respondents.
14. Considering the submissions of
both the parties and upon perusal of the contents
of the Writ petition, and counter affidavit a
Patna High Court CWJC No.21129 of 2014 dt.11-02-2026
10/11
General Body Meeting was held on 17.10.2014 to
fill up the post of Sevika of Ward No. 110 and the
participants were apprise of the guidelines of
selection of the year 2011. The candidatures of the
7 candidates were discussed, however, the
Petitioner was not present in the Aam Sabha. The
panel was prepared wherein the name of Kanchan
Rai figured at Serial No. 1 and she was declared as
selected candidates whereas the Petitioner was not
found to be of the Poshak Area and as such she
was not selected. The merit list was prepared on
17.08.2013 as contained in Annexure-1 from where
it is evident that the Petitioner figured at Serial No.
1 and one Usha Kumari figured at Serial No. 2 but
they both did not fall within Poshak Area and the
private respondent being at Serial No. 3 was found
to be within Poshak Area.
15. It further transpires from the
contents of the counter affidavit that the selection
process was admitted being conducted as per
2011 Guidelines and the requisite qualification for
selection of Anganbari Sevika is laid down in
Patna High Court CWJC No.21129 of 2014 dt.11-02-2026
11/11
Clause-IV of the guidelines and the relevant clause
for the present case is Clause-4.5 which reads as
under. 4.5 से ववका को सं बंवधत पोषक के तर् का सथायी वनवासी
होना अवनवायर होगा। इसके वलए सकम प्रावधकार दारा वनगरत
आवासीय प्रमाण पत्र साकय माना जाये गा"
16. Therefore, Court is of the
considered view that the action of respondents is
not arbitrary or illegal in selecting the private
respondents as Anganbari Sevika to warrant any
interference by this Court.
17. Accordingly, the Writ petition is
dismissed as devoid of merits.
18. Interlocutory Application, if any,
shall stands disposed of.
(G. Anupama Chakravarthy, J)
Spd/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 13.02.2026
Transmission Date
Checking your session…