Patna High Court
Rita KumariversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- ANSHUMAN
Holding
The writ petition is dismissed as the court finds no merit in interfering with the appointment made under the applicable 2006 guidelines.
Summary
The petitioner, Rita Kumari, challenged the rejection of her selection appeal for the post of Anganwadi Sevika in Ward No.3, arguing that the appointment should be based on Circular I.C.D.S. (D) 2783 which mandates selection according to beneficiary area. She contended that the original and appellate authorities failed to consider that she belongs to Ward No.4, making her the rightful candidate under the mapping panji. The State and the private respondent countered that the appointment was made in 2009 following the then‑applicable Margdarshika (2006) and that the private respondent satisfied all eligibility criteria and ranked higher in the merit list. The High Court examined the records and observed that the appointment was effected before ward‑wise mapping was introduced, and the authorities had applied the correct 2006 guidelines. Consequently, the Court declined to interfere with the administrative decision and dismissed the writ petition.
Issues considered
- Whether the order rejecting the petitioner's selection appeal should be quashed for not adhering to Circular I.C.D.S. (D) 2783 on beneficiary‑area based appointment.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to appointment based on later ward‑wise mapping despite earlier selection under the 2006 Margdarshika.
- Whether the appellate authority erred in not considering the petitioner's ward affiliation and merit ranking.
Subjects
- Anganwadi Sevika appointment
- selection appeal
- beneficiary area
- ward mapping
- administrative discretion
- public service recruitment
- writ petition
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8579 of 2024
======================================================
Rita Kumari Wife of Awadhesh Kumar, Resident of Village- Chandaul, P.O.-
Sihuli Gram Panchayat Sihuli, District- Aurangabad, Bihar.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Social Welfare Department,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Commissioner, Magadh Division, gaya.
3. The District Magistrate, Aurangabad.
4. The District Programme Officer, Aurangabad.
5. The Child Development Project Officer, Rafiganj, Aurangabad.
6. The Mukhiya, Sihuli Gram Panchayat, Block- Rafiganj, District-
Aurangabad.
7. Suchita Devi Wife of Kishori Prasad Singh, Resident of Village- Chadaul,
P.O.- Sihuli, District-Aurangabad.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Sunil Kumar Yadav, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Government Advocate (10)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
ORAL ORDER
2 03-02-2026 Heard Learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned
Counsel for the State and learned counsel for the private
respondents.
2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the
present writ petition has been filed with the following reliefs:-
a) To quash the order dated 15.03.2024 passed
in Aanganbari Sevika, selection appeal No. 62/2020,
415/2020 passed by learned Addl. Collector cum- Addl.
District Magistrate Aurangabad issued vide Memo No.
1179 dated 16.03.2024 where by and whereunder the
appeal prefured by the petitioner rejected without any
assigned reason.
(b) To direct the competent authority to select
the petitioner on the basis of Circular issued by Circular
I.C.D.S. (D) 2783 dated 03.10.2006 section 3 (g) in which it
was mentioned that appointment should be based on
beneficiary area.
Patna High Court CWJC No.8579 of 2024(2) dt.03-02-2026
2/4
3. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the
dispute is relating to appointment of Anganwari Sevika in Ward
No.3 of Chandaul Village for which post was advertise in the
year 2009. He further submits that it is the second round
litigation. Earlier, the petitioner had moved in C.W.J.C.
No.19537 of 2011, which was disposed of vide order dated
02.12.2011, with specific direction to remit back the matter
before the Divisional Commissioner and adjudicate the same.
He further submits that the said order has been passed thereafter,
who has pleased to remanded the matter before the District
Magistrate, Aurangabad to pass final order. He further submits
that the final order has been passed which is presently impugned
here in which this aspect has not been considered at all by the
Original Authority as well as Appellate Authority that the
petitioner belongs to Ward No.4, whereas Anganwari is situated
at Ward No.3.
4. Counsel further submits that according to mapping
panji, the petitioner is the competent person to be appointed and
respondent No.7 is not competent for the same. He further
submits that the Appellate Authority has not considered the case
of the petitioner at all and affirmed the order passed by the
Original Authority dated 11.09.2014 as correct.
5. Counsel further submits that the writ petition be
Patna High Court CWJC No.8579 of 2024(2) dt.03-02-2026
3/4
allowed and appointment of private respondent be removed and
in place thereof, the petitioner may be appointed.
6. Counsel for the State, on the other hand, submits
that it is true that it is second round of litigation in which the
private respondent was held to continue by the Original
Authority as well as the Appellate Authority. He further submits
that the decision was well reasoned and there is no need of any
interference.
7. Counsel further submits that the appointment was
made by virtue of advertisement of 2009 and according to the
2009, every ingredient is available in favour of the private
respondent.
8. Learned counsel for the private respondent submits
that during the said period, as per the advertisement, all
eligibility was in favour of the private respondent and in the
merit list, the name of private respondent is figured at serial
No.2 and the name of petitioner is figured after her. In the
voting list, name of private respondent and petitioner both are
there. He further submits that when mapping started, after
completion of the process of selection, then only, she was found
in another catchment area. He further submits that at the time of
fulfilling the advertisement, every eligibility was in favour of
the private respondent. Therefore, the Original Authority as well
Patna High Court CWJC No.8579 of 2024(2) dt.03-02-2026
4/4
as Appellate Authority have decided this case completely in
accordance with merit and there is no need of any interference.
9. Upon hearing the parties and perusal of the order, it
transpires to this Court that the appointment has been made in
the light of Margdarshika for appointment of Anganwari Sevika
or Sahayika, 2006 and at that very time, the Anganwari centre
was not based on ward wise. The name of petitioner and private
respondent both were present in the Ward No.3. In the mapping
punji, which was taken place at subsequent time, the name of
private respondent has entered in Ward No.4, but petitioner’s
appointment was taken place at early stage where Margdarshika
Rule of Anganwari Sevika or Sahayika, 2006 was applicable
about which a detailed discussion has been made by the Original
Authority as well as the Appellate Authority. As such, this Court
is not inclined to interfere in the said orders and hence,
dismissed.
10. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the
present writ application stands dismissed.
(Dr. Anshuman, J)
Prakashmani/-
U
Checking your session…