Patna High Court
Puja KumariversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- ANSHUMAN
Holding
The petition is dismissed as it is barred by the applicable margdarshika due to the six‑year delay.
Summary
Puja Kumari applied for the post of Sevika under the Integrated Child Development Services (ICDS) and was allegedly overlooked in the final selection dated 5 September 2020, where another candidate was appointed. She filed a writ petition in 2026 seeking to quash the selection and obtain the post. The State of Bihar contended that the petition was filed six years after the selection, violating the applicable margdarshika on time limits for such challenges. The High Court examined the delay and found that the petitioner had not complied with the prescribed procedural timeline. Consequently, the Court dismissed the writ petition as untimely, without entertaining the merits of the selection process.
Issues considered
- Whether a writ petition challenging a government selection made in 2020 is maintainable when filed after six years.
- Whether the court can quash the final selection letter dated 5-9-2020 on the basis of alleged procedural irregularities.
Subjects
- ICDS
- Sevika selection
- writ petition
- administrative law
- limitation period
- margdarshika
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6635 of 2026
======================================================
Puja Kumari W/o Harendra Ram, Resident of Village Dhanaw Khalsa, P.O.
Marojhiyan, P.S.- Nasariganj Panchayat Etimha, District- Rohtas.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
2. The District Magistrate Rohtas, Sasaram.
3. The Child Development Project officer Nasriganj, Rohtas.
4. The Block Child Project Officer Etimha, Rohtas.
5. Srimati Urmila Kumari, wife of Sandeep Kumar, Resident of Village-
Dhanaw Khalsa, Ward no.10,P.O- Marojiya, P.S-Nasirganj, Panchayat-
Itimha, Dist.-Rohtas.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ramesh Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Shiv Kumar (AC to GA-03)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
ORAL ORDER
2 30-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
counsel for the State.
2. The present writ petition has been filed for the
following relief/s:-
“I. That women's & child Development
Project quash the final selection letter dated
5-9-2020 prepared for the post anganbari of
sevika and sahaika system (hereinafter
referred as I.C.D.S as well an final List suchi
and on the basis of the said final list I.C.D.S
to appoint the private respondent on the post
of sevika under the scheme of child
Development scheme. There was Aam Sabha
Patna High Court CWJC No.6635 of 2026(2) dt.30-04-2026
2/3
under the presidentship at Mukhiya at Gram
Panchayat in the year 2019 and in the
presence of the member, Sarpanch and
Villagers favor of the Private Respondent No.-
5 was selected as Sevika under the Dhanawn
Khalsa Gram Panchayat Police station-
Nasariganj on career. The petitioner filed
application to the post of Sevika and her
selection was duly informed by the Mukhiya
and other in the meeting of the Aam Sabha but
unfortunately the child Development Project
officer nasriganj Rohtas as well as the District
magistrate Rohtas at Sasaram did not
consider the petitioner.
II. For grant of any other relief or reliefs upon
which the petitioner is entitled for any other
relief or reliefs on the basis at facts as well as
Law.”
3. Learned counsel for the State raised preliminary
objection and submits that the final selection of private
respondent no.5 was made in the year 2020 and the same has
been challenged by the petitioner after six years directly before
this Hon’ble Court, which is in violation of the relevant
margdarshika applicable to the petitioner.
4. As such, this Court is not inclined to entertain this
writ application after six years, in-spite of the fact that rule has
Patna High Court CWJC No.6635 of 2026(2) dt.30-04-2026
3/3
already been framed in the relevant margdarshika which the
petitioner has not followed.
5. Hence, this writ petition stands dismissed.
(Dr. Anshuman, J)
Divyansh/-
U
Checking your session…