Patna High Court
Rinku DeviversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- ANSHUMAN
Holding
The Court held that the District Programme Officer had failed to pass an order under Rule 12 and directed him to do so within 60 days, thereby disposing the writ petition.
Summary
The petitioner, Rinku Devi, filed a writ petition seeking to quash the selection letter dated 12‑04‑2018 that appointed respondent No.6, Pinki Kumari, as Anganbari Sahayika, alleging that the appointment was based on forged documents. The petitioner claimed that a complaint was lodged with the District Programme Officer (DPO) and that the DPO’s investigation found the certificates to be forged, yet no action was taken. The State contended that the complaint was examined, the certificates were verified as genuine, and therefore no order was required. The Court examined Rule 12 of the Anganwari Sevika/Sahayika Margdarshika, 2016, which mandates that the DPO must entertain such complaints and pass an order after hearing both parties. Finding that the DPO had not issued any order, the Court directed the DPO to comply with the rule and pass a decision within 60 days from the date of appearance of the parties. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether the selection letter appointing respondent No.6 can be quashed on the ground of alleged forged documents.
- Whether the District Programme Officer complied with Rule 12 of the Anganwari Sevika/Sahayika Margdarshika, 2016 in entertaining the complaint.
- Whether the court can direct the District Programme Officer to pass an order within a specified time frame.
Subjects
- Anganwadi
- Anganbari Sahayika
- selection letter
- forged documents
- Rule 12
- Anganwari Sevika/Sahayika Margdarshika, 2016
- District Programme Officer
- writ petition
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3452 of 2022
======================================================
Rinku Devi Wife of Rupa Paswan, resident of Village-Chandrakaithi, P.O.-
Chandra Kaithi, P.S.-Chenari, District-Rohtas.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Govt.
of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Director, Integrated Child Development Scheme, Social Welfare
Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
3. The District Magistrate, Rohtas, Sasaram.
4. District Programme Officer, Rohtas at Sasaram.
5. Child Development Project Officer, Block Chenari, District-Rohtas,
Sasaram.
6. Pinki Kumari, Wife of Chandan Paswan, Resident of Village-Chandrakathi,
P.S. and Block-Chenari, District-Rohtas.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Mukul Sinha, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. S.K. Mandal (SC-3)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 28-01-2026
Heard Learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned
Counsel for the State.
2. The present writ petition has been filed for
quashing the selection letter dated 12.04.2018, by which
respondent No.6 was appointed on the post of Anganbari
Sahayika.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the
selection has been made on the basis of forged and fabricated
documents of respondent No.6. He submits that he has moved
before the District programme Officer making objection with
Patna High Court CWJC No.3452 of 2022 dt.28-01-2026
2/3
regard to appointment of respondent No.6 vide Annexure-7.
According to Rule 12 of the Anganwari Sevika/Sahayika
Margdarshika, 2016. He submits that on his objection action
has been taken and Committee was formed. Counsel submits
that the C.D.P.O. has entertained the complaint and disposed off
the same. Counsel submits that vide Annexure-8, it has been
found by the C.D.P.O. that the certificates are forged and
fabricated but no action had been taken. Therefore, Counsel
submits that Selection Letter dated 12.04.2018 be set aside and
at the place of respondent No.6 petitioner be appointed.
4. Learned Counsel for the State, on the other hand,
submits that it is true that objection has been made by the
petitioner against the appointment of respondent No.6. The
C.D.P.O. has called for the report from the concerned School
and Headmaster of the School upon verification submits that the
certificate was genuine and, therefore, no action was taken.
5. After hearing the parties, certain points which are
very much clear that appointment of respondent No.6 is guided
by the Anganwari Sevika/Sahayika Margdarshika, 2016 and
under the Anganwari Sevika/Sahayika Margdarshika, 2016
Rule 12 states about the entertainment of the complaint relating
to any appointment by the District Programme Officer. It
Patna High Court CWJC No.3452 of 2022 dt.28-01-2026
3/3
transpires to this Court that complaint has been filed against the
said appointment under which District Programme Officer has
to pass order, but from the pleadings and documents on record,
it transpires that the District Programme Officer, Rohtas,
Sasaram, had not passed any order on the said complaint. It is
due to this reason, this Court, without entertaining into the merit
and demerit of the case, hereby directs respondent No.4, the
District Programme Officer, Rohtas at Sasaram, to follow the
law laid down under Rule 12 of the Anganwari Sevika/Sahayika
Margdarshika, 2016. According to which, District Programme
Officer upon receiving the complaint shall pass order based on
evidence and hearing both the parties. As such, he shall pass
order within 60 days from the date of receipt/production of a
copy of this order before him.
6. The time of 60 days shall be counted from the date
of appearance of both the parties before him.
7. With this direction, the writ petition stands disposed
off.
(Dr. Anshuman, J)
Mkr./-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 31.01.2026
Transmission Date
Checking your session…