Patna High Court
Sunita Devi @ Sunita KumariversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- ANSHUMAN
Holding
The Court held that the earlier orders rejecting the petitioner’s claim were to be set aside because the clarification dated 27‑06‑2019 was not considered, and the petitioner is entitled to a fresh application to determine her eligibility.
Summary
The petitioner, Sunita Devi, filed a writ petition seeking to quash the order of the Additional Collector dated 31‑08‑2021 and the earlier order of the District Programme Officer dated 20‑04‑2019, which rejected her claim to the post of Anganwadi Sevika despite a merit list dated 23‑06‑2018. She argued that a clarification issued by the Director, ICDS on 27‑06‑2019, confirming that a resignation must be prior to the General Body Meeting, established her eligibility, but this clarification was not considered by the authorities. The State contended that the respondent No. 8 had already been appointed and that the petitioner had not specifically challenged that appointment. The Court held that the key issue was the decision the District Programme Officer should have taken in light of the 27‑06‑2019 clarification, and, since the clarification was not before the authority at the relevant time and the appointment of respondent No. 8 was unchallenged, it would not decide the merits. Consequently, the Court set aside both the 2019 and 2021 orders and granted the petitioner liberty to file a fresh application within 30 days, directing a hearing and a reasoned order within 90 days.
Issues considered
- What is the effect of the Director, ICDS clarification dated 27‑06‑2019 on the eligibility of the petitioner for the Anganwadi Sevika post?
- Whether the orders of the District Programme Officer (20‑04‑2019) and the Additional Collector (31‑08‑2021) should be quashed in view of the later clarification?
- Whether the appointment of respondent No. 8, which was not directly challenged, can be set aside or affect the petitioner's relief?
- Whether the High Court can entertain the merits of the appointment dispute or is limited to setting aside the earlier orders?
Subjects
- Anganwadi Sevika appointment
- ICDS
- writ petition
- quashing order
- mandamus
- eligibility criteria
- administrative law
- public service recruitment
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8656 of 2025
======================================================
Sunita Devi @ Sunita Kumari Wife of Jai Prakash Kumar, Resident of
Village- Kosiyar, Ward No.- 3, Block-Sahar, Police Station- Chouri, District-
Bhojpur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Social Welfare
Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Director, Integrated Child Development Services (ICDS), Government
of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Divisional Commissioner, Patna, District- Patna.
4. The District Magistrate, Bhojpur at Ara, District- Bhojpur at Ara.
5. The Additional Collector, Bhojpur at Ara, District- Bhojpur at Ara.
6. The District Programme Officer, ICDS, Bhojpur at Ara, District- Bhojpur at
Ara.
7. The Child Development Programme Officer, Sahar, Bhojpur at Ara, District-
Bhojpur at Ara.
8. Manju Devi, Wife of Yogendra Prasad Gupta, Resident of Village- Kosiyar,
Ward No.- 3, Block-Sahar, Police Station- Chouri, District- Bhojpur at Ara.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Rama Kant Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Uday Prasad, AC to GP-22
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 30-04-2026
Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and
learned counsel appearing for the State.
2. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition for
the following relief/s :-
“………..for quashing the order
contained in Memo No. 275 dated 31.08.2021,
passed by the Additional Collector, Bhojpur at
Ara, in Anganwadi Appeal No. 23/2019, whereby
Patna High Court CWJC No.8656 of 2025 dt.30-04-2026
2/5
the appeal was rejected and the order contained
in Memo N.721 dated 20.04.2019 passed by the
District Programme Officer (DPO), ICDS,
Bhojpur, was upheld.
Further, it is also prayed to quash the
order contained in Memo No. 721 dated
20.04.2019, passed by the District Programme
Officer, ICDS, Bhojpur, to whom the petitioner
had requested seeking direction upon the
concerned authority concerned to hold a meeting
of Aam Sabha of Ward No.3 of Amruha Gram
Panchayat for her selection to the post of
Anganwadi Sevika as per the merit list dated
23.06.2018 but the District Programme Officer by
passing the petitioner’s claim directed the Child
Development Programme Officer, Sahar to
appoint the next eligible candidate in the merit
list to the post of Anganwadi Sevika.
It is also prayed for issuance of a writ
in the nature of mandamus directing the
concerned authority to appoint the petitioner to
the post of Anganwadi Sevika for Anganwadi
Centre No. 117, Kosiyar (Paschim), Ward No. 3 of
Amruha Gram Panchayat, Block -Sahar, District
Bhojpur at Ara, based on the merit list dated
23.06.2018.”
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
candidature of the petitioner has been cancelled/not considered
on frivolous grounds, which was initially challenged before the
District Programme Officer and thereafter in appeal before the
Additional Collector, and subsequently in revision before the
Divisional Commissioner, as contained in Annexures P/7, P/8
and P/9 respectively.
4. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand,
Patna High Court CWJC No.8656 of 2025 dt.30-04-2026
3/5
submits that during the pendency of the proceedings initiated by
the petitioner before various forums, respondent no. 8 has
already been appointed. It further appears that the petitioner has
not specifically challenged the appointment of respondent no. 8.
Learned counsel further submits that according to the guidelines
governing appointment to the post of Anganwari Sevika and
Sahayika, the petitioner’s primary contention is that his mother-
in-law had resigned from the said beneficial post on 23.05.2018
and the resignation was accepted on the same day, thereby
rendering the petitioner eligible. Learned counsel for the
petitioner further submits that the Director, I.C.D.S., Bihar,
Patna, vide letter no. 3251 dated 27.06.2019 (Annexure-6),
clarified that resignation of a member of a public representative
category must be prior to the General Body Meeting in cases
relating to appointment of Anganwari Sevika.
5. Learned counsel further submits that it transpires
that the District Programme Officer had already passed the final
order against the petitioner on 20.04.2019, i.e., prior to issuance
of the said clarification dated 27.06.2019. Further, from the
order dated 13.08.2021 passed in Anganwari Appeal No. 23 of
2019, it appears that the aforesaid clarification dated 27.06.2019
was not brought on record, and the matter was decided against
Patna High Court CWJC No.8656 of 2025 dt.30-04-2026
4/5
the petitioner. The petitioner has placed the said clarification
before this Court for the first time and submits that in view of
the same, the petitioner satisfies the eligibility criteria. It is,
however, admitted that in the meantime respondent no. 8 has
already been appointed and her appointment has not been
directly challenged. It also appears that respondent no. 8 was
impleaded as a party during the appellate proceedings. Further,
it appears that the order dated 18.06.2024 passed in Anganwadi
Revision Appeal No. 132 of 2021 (Annexure P/9) was not
decided on merits, but was disposed of on the ground of
maintainability, whereafter the present writ petition has been
filed.
6. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court
is of the considered view that the issue requiring adjudication is
as to what decision ought to have been taken by the District
Programme Officer in light of the clarification dated
27.06.2019. However, this Court is not inclined to adjudicate the
matter on merits at this stage, particularly in view of the fact
that the said clarification was not placed before the competent
authority at the relevant time, and further that the appointment
of respondent no. 8 has not been challenged.
7. Accordingly, the order dated 20.04.2019 passed by
Patna High Court CWJC No.8656 of 2025 dt.30-04-2026
5/5
the District Programme Officer, ICDS, Bhojpur, Ara (Annexure-
7) and the order dated 31.08.2021 passed by the Additional
Collector, Bhojpur, Ara in Anganwari Appeal No. 23/2019
(Annexure-8) are hereby set aside.
8. However, the petitioner is granted liberty to file a
fresh application before the District Programme Officer within a
period of 30 days from today, raising all relevant grounds,
including the prayer for cancellation of the appointment of
respondent no. 8 and consideration of his eligibility in light of
the clarification dated 27.06.2019.
9. It is further directed that upon filing of such
application, the District Programme Officer shall provide an
opportunity of hearing to all concerned parties and pass a
reasoned order in accordance with law within a period of 90
days from the date of appearance of the parties. The period of 90
days shall be reckoned from the date all concerned parties
appear before the authority.
(Dr. Anshuman, J)
Ashwini/-
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 01.05.2026
Transmission Date NA
Checking your session…