Patna High Court
Kanchan KumariversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- ANSHUMAN
Holding
The Court held that the Collector had duly considered the relevant Panchayat records and reports, and therefore the order cannot be interfered with.
Summary
Petitioner Kanchan Kumari filed a writ petition seeking to quash the Collector, Supaul's order dated 31-01-2025 that appointed respondent Aarti Kumari under Anganwadi Appeal No.10/2023. She contended that the appointment violated the 2016 Guidelines because the appellant's name was absent from the Panchayat Nirwachan Niyamawali and that the Collector ignored this statutory requirement. The State argued that the Collector had examined the Panchayat Matdata Suchi, the B.L.O. report, and obtained oral and written inputs from the Mukhiya, Sarpanch, Panch and Prakhand Pramukh before deciding. The High Court, after perusing the record, found that the Collector had indeed considered all relevant Panchayat records and reports before passing the order. Accordingly, the Court held there was no ground for interference and dismissed the writ petition.
Issues considered
- Whether the Collector's order appointing the respondent under the 2016 Guidelines is invalid for not having the appellant's name in the Panchayat Nirwachan Niyamawali
- Whether the writ petition seeking quash of the Collector's order should be entertained
Subjects
- appointment
- Panchayat Nirwachan Niyamawali
- Guidelines 2016
- writ petition
- quashing order
- administrative law
- local self-government
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6747 of 2025
======================================================
Kanchan Kumari W/o Praveen Kumar Mandal, Resident of Village- Simariya,
Panchyat Simariya, Ward no.-02, Block Triveniganj, P.S.- Triveniganj,
District- Supaul.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Social
Welfare, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Collector, Supaul.
3. The District Programme Officer (I.C.D.S), Supaul.
4. The Child Development Project Officer, Triveniganj, District- Supaul.
5. Aarti Kumari, Wife of Baijnath Kumar, Resident of Village- Simariya,
Anchal Simariya, Ward no.- 2, Block- Triveniganj, P.S.- Triveniganj,
District- Supaul.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Abdul Mannan Khan, Advocate
Mr. Hafiz Shahbaz Asif, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Ranjeet Kumar, AC to SC-23
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
ORAL ORDER
2 20-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
counsel for the State.
2. The present writ petition has been filed for the
following reliefs:-
“For issuance of an appropriate
writ(s), order(s) direction (s) for quashing
the order dated 31.01.2025 in Aganbari
Appeal Case no.10/2023 passed by the
respondent Collector, Supaul by which he
has allowed the appeal filed by the
respondent no.5 and further directed to the
Patna High Court CWJC No.6747 of 2025(2) dt.20-04-2026
2/3
District Programme Officer, I.C.D.S, Supaul
to issue appointment letter in favour of
respondent no.5”
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
order passed by the Collector, Supaul, dated 31.01.2025, passed
in Anganwari Appeal No. 10 of 2023, is not sustainable in the
eye of law, whereas the order passed by the D.P.O. ought to
prevail. The reason assigned is that the appointment in question
was made in light of the Guidelines of 2016, and there is a
deficiency under Rule 5 of the said Guidelines of 2016, as the
name of the private respondent (appellant) was not present in
the Panchayat Nirwachan Niyamawali, 2016, and this aspect
was completely ignored.
4. Counsel further submits that the Collector, Supaul,
while passing the order, completely ignored this aspect of the
matter, therefore, he submits that interference is required and
notice be issued to private respondent No. 5 in this case.
5. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand,
submits that the issue of non-entry of the appellant’s name in the
Panchayat Nirwachan Niyamawali has been duly considered
and discussed. He further submits that the District Magistrate
conducted an inquiry by obtaining written as well as oral inputs
from the Mukhiya, Sarpanch, Panch, and Prakhand Pramukh,
Patna High Court CWJC No.6747 of 2025(2) dt.20-04-2026
3/3
and also verified the earlier Panchayat Matdata Niyamawali.
Considering all aspects of the matter, the order was passed, and
there is no need for any interference with the said order.
6. After hearing the parties and perusal of the record,
it transpires to this Court that the Collector, Supaul, at the time
of passing the order, has considered the earlier Panchayat
Matdata Suchi and the report of the B.L.O., Mukhiya, Sarpanch,
Panch, Prakhand Pramukh, as well as the Panchayat Aam
Nirwachan Niyamawali of the relevant years, and thereafter
passed the order.
7. Therefore, this Court deems it appropriate not to
interfere with the said order.
8. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands
dismissed.
(Dr. Anshuman, J.)
Aman Kumar/-
U
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.