Patna High Court
Kumari Archana @ Archana Kumari @ Archana DeviversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- PARTHA SARTHY
Holding
The Court held that there was no illegality in the DPO's order or the Collector's affirmation and dismissed the writ petition.
Summary
The petitioner, Archana Kumari, applied for the post of Anganwadi Sevika in Sitamarhi and was initially selected in an Aam Sabha held on 3 November 2016. Respondent No.5, Rakhi Kumari, challenged this selection, leading the District Programme Officer (DPO) to set aside Archana's appointment and order a fresh Aam Sabha, which resulted in Rakhi's selection on 26 September 2017. Archana appealed this decision, but the Collector upheld the DPO's order on 15 June 2021. The petitioner argued that Rakhi was ineligible because she was not on the voter list at the relevant time, while the respondents contended that merit (higher marks) justified the selection. The Court examined the voter‑list records, found that Rakhi's name had been corrected in the 2016 list, and concluded that the DPO and Collector had acted within their authority, finding no illegality in their orders. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether the DPO's order setting aside the petitioner's appointment and directing a fresh Aam Sabha was illegal.
- Whether the Collector's affirmation of the DPO's order was valid.
- Whether the absence of the respondent from the voter list at the relevant time disqualified her from appointment as Anganwadi Sevika.
- Whether marks alone determine merit for appointment under the 2016 Anganwadi Sevika guidelines.
Subjects
- Anganwadi Sevika appointment
- Merit based selection
- Voter list eligibility
- Administrative law
- Writ petition
- Public service recruitment
- Guidelines 2016
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.537 of 2022
======================================================
Kumari Archana @ Archana Kumari @ Archana Devi Wife of Sri Vijay
Kumar Resident of Village - Mahisar, Gram Panchayat - Mahisar, Ward No. 8,
Police Station Runni Saidpur, District- Sitamarhi.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Collector, Sitamarhi.
2. The Collector, Sitamarhi.
3. The District Programme Officer, Sitamarhi.
4. The Child Development Project Officer, Runni Saidpur P.S. Runni Shaidpur,
District- Sitamarhi.
5. Rakhi Kumari Wife of Sri Binay Sah Resident of Village - Mahisar, Police
Station Runni Saidpur, District- Sitamarhi.
6. Smt. Kusum Kumari Mahila Supervisor (Prayaveskhika) (Lady Supervisor),
Child Development Pariyojna Karyalaya, Runni Saidpur, Police Station
Runni Saidpur, District- Sitamarhi.
7. Smt. Sugai Devi Ward Member, Ward No. 6, Gram Panchayat, Mahisar cum
Chairman, Chayan Samiti, Anganbari Kendra, 361, Child Development
Pariyojana, Runni Saidpur, District- Sitamarhi.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Upendra Prasad, Advocate
Mr. Veena Kumari Jaiswal, Advocate
For the State : Mr. S.K. Mandal, SC- 3
Mr. Arjun Prasad, AC to SC- 3
For Respondent no.5 : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Sharma, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 02-04-2026
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
counsel for the State of Bihar and learned counsel for
respondent no.5. No one appears on behalf of respondent nos.6
and 7.
Patna High Court CWJC No.537 of 2022 dt.02-04-2026
2/7
2. The petitioner has filed the instant application for
the following relief:
“1. That this writ petition is
being filed on behalf of the petitioner
above named for issuance of an
appropriate writ(s), order(s),
direction(s) commanding the
respondents as well as for quashing
the order dated 15.06.2021 passed by
the Collector, Sitamarhi respondent
no. 2, whereby he has been pleased to
reject Anganbari Appeal No. 59 of
2017 filed on behalf of the petitioner
affirming the order dated 06.09.2017
passed by District Programme Officer,
Sitamarhi and also for quashing of
order dated 26.09.2017 whereby
respondent no. 5 has been selected for
the post of Anganbari Sevika in place
of the petitioner by the Chairman Smt.
Sugia Devi, who is own Gotani of the
chairman.”
3. The relevant facts in brief are that the respondents
having come out with advertisement on 11.6.2016 for
appointment of Anganwadi Sevika for Anganwadi Centre no.
361 in Ward no. 6 of Gram Panchayat Mahisar under block
Runnisaidpur in the district of Sitamarhi, a total of six
Patna High Court CWJC No.537 of 2022 dt.02-04-2026
3/7
candidates including the petitioner and the respondent no.5 filed
their applications.
4. An Aam Sabha was convened on 3.11.2013 under
the chairmanship of Smt. Sugiya Devi, a ward member of ward
no. 6 and a merit list was prepared containing the names of three
candidates, namely Kumari Archana (petitioner herein), Veena
Kumari and Gayatri Kumari. The respondent no.5 was not
placed in the panel for the reason of her not being in the voter
list of the ward in question.
5. As per the decision of the Aam Sabha, a letter of
selection dated 3.11.2016 was served on the petitioner.
6. The appointment of the petitioner was challenged
by the respondent no.5 by filing Anganwadi Appeal Case no. 11
of 2017 before the District Program Officer, Sitamarhi. The
DPO, Sitamarhi by his order dated 6.9.2017 (Annexure-2)
allowed the appeal filed by respondent no.5, set aside the
appointment of the petitioner and directed the CDPO,
Runnisaidpur to proceed with holding of the Aam Sabha afresh
and to complete the selection process.
7. Pursuant to the direction of the DPO, Sitamarhi, as
contained in order dated 6.9.2017, an Aam Sabha was held on
26.9.2017 and the respondent no.5 was selected as Anganwadi
Patna High Court CWJC No.537 of 2022 dt.02-04-2026
4/7
Sevika for Anganwadi Centre no.361. Accordingly, a letter of
selection was issued in her favour.
8. The petitioner preferred an appeal being
Anganwadi Appeal Case no. 59 of 2017 which was rejected by
order dated 15.6.2021 passed by the Collector, Sitamarhi. It was
observed therein that there is no illegality in the order dated
6.9.2017 of the DPO, Sitamarhi.
9. It is against these orders dated 6.9.2017 of the
DPO, Sitamarhi and the order dated 15.6.2021 of the Collector,
Sitamarhi that the instant writ application has been filed.
10. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner that though it is not in dispute that while the
petitioner obtained 47% and the respondent no.5 got 55.2%
marks, however, marks is not the only criteria for appointment
as Anganwadi Sevika. It was contended that the respondent no.5
is not a voter of the place where the Anganwadi Sevika Centre is
situated and on the relevant date, the name of respondent no.5
did not figure in the voter list. As such, the respondent no.5 was
rightly not selected as an Anganwadi Sevika in the Aam Sabha
held on 3.11.2016. The respondents not having considered that
the name of the respondent no.5 did not figure in the voter list
on the relevant date have committed an error in setting aside the
Patna High Court CWJC No.537 of 2022 dt.02-04-2026
5/7
selection of the petitioner and directing for appointment of the
respondent no.5. It is thus submitted that the writ application be
allowed.
11. The application is opposed by learned counsel
appearing for the State of Bihar.
12. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.5
opposing the writ application submits that there is no dispute
with respect to the fact that respondent no.5 secured higher
marks than the petitioner and as such her selection was
consistent with the principles of merit based appointment. It was
further contended from the contents of the orders under
challenge that the Chairperson of the Aam Sabha did not sign
the resolution which was contrary to the guidelines. With
respect to the absence of the name of the respondent no.5 from
the voter list, it was submitted that the said contention was taken
into consideration and dealt with in detail by the respondent
authorities in the orders impugned. There is no merit in the same
nor any merit in the instant writ application and the same be
dismissed.
13. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
having perused the material on record, there remains no doubt
that as per Clause 4 of the 2016 guidelines for appointment of
Patna High Court CWJC No.537 of 2022 dt.02-04-2026
6/7
Anganwadi Sevika, matriculation or equivalent is the eligibility
for appointment. It is also not in dispute that while the petitioner
secured 47% marks, the respondent no.5 secured 55.2% marks.
14. So far as contention of learned counsel for the
petitioner with respect to the name of the respondent no.5 not
figuring in the voter list at the relevant time is concerned, this
Court finds that both the DPO, Sitamarhi as also the Collector,
Sitamarhi in the orders impugned have dealt with this aspect in
detail. In the relevant voter list for the year 2011, while the
name of the father-in-law of respondent no.5 figures at serial
no.59, on his death, in the voter list prepared for the Panchayat
Elections in the year 2016, the name of the family members of
the respondent no.5 figures at serial nos.76, 77, 78 and 82. It
was as a result of the error committed by the BLO (Booth Level
Officer) that the name of the respondent no.5 was not included,
however, application for the same was filed on 5.6.2015 itself,
which was before the advertisement in question having been
published by the respondents on 11.6.2016. It may further be
observed that on 24.11.2016 in the amended/corrected voter list
published, the name of the respondent no.5 figures at serial
no.45.
15. Taking the above facts into consideration, the
Patna High Court CWJC No.537 of 2022 dt.02-04-2026
7/7
DPO, Sitamarhi allowed the appeal preferred by the respondent
no.5 by his order dated 6.9.2017 and the appeal preferred by the
petitioner was rejected by the Collector by his order dated
15.6.2021 affirming the order dated 6.9.2017 of the DPO,
Sitamarhi.
16. The Court finds no illegality in the order dated
6.9.2017 passed in Anganwadi Appeal Case no.11 of 2017 by
the DPO, Sitamarhi nor in the order dated 15.6.2021 passed in
Anganwadi Appeal Case no.59 of 2017 by the Collector,
Sitamarhi nor any merit in the instant writ application.
17. The application is dismissed.
(Partha Sarthy, J)
sauravkrsinha/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 2.4.2026
Transmission Date NA
Checking your session…