Patna High Court
Nitu KumariversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- ANSHUMAN
Holding
The Court held that the disqualification under Rule 6 was valid and the impugned orders were in accordance with law.
Summary
Nitu Kumari, wife of a Home Guard earning Rs.12,000 per month, filed a writ petition seeking to quash the order of the Collector that dismissed her appeal for appointment as Anganwadi Sevika and to compel her appointment. She alleged that her husband’s income should not disqualify her as a Home Guard is not a regular government servant. The State contended that a letter from the district commandant confirmed the husband’s income exceeded Rs.12,000 per month. The Court examined the Anganwadi Sevika/Sahayika Appointment Guidelines, 2016, particularly Rule 6, which bars the appointment of a wife or daughter‑in‑law of any person (government or non‑government) earning Rs.12,000 or more monthly. Finding the husband’s income met that threshold, the Court held the DPO’s and Collector’s orders were lawful and dismissed the petition.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner’s husband’s income as a Home Guard disqualifies her under Rule 6 of the Anganwadi Sevika/Sahayika Appointment Guidelines, 2016.
- Whether the orders of the District Programme Officer and the Collector-cum-District Magistrate can be quashed on the ground of non‑consideration of the petitioner’s documents.
- Whether a writ of mandamus can be issued directing the appointment of the petitioner as Anganwadi Sevika.
Subjects
- Anganwadi Sevika
- Home Guard
- Income criteria
- Writ petition
- Certiorari
- Mandamus
- Rule 6
- Public service recruitment
- Disqualification
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9200 of 2025
======================================================
Nitu Kumari Wife of Awadh Kishore Prasad @ Awadhesh Kishore Prasad,
Resident of Village - Gonahi, Ward No. 07, P.S. - Patahi, District - East
Champaran.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Social Welfare
Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Director, I.C.D.S., Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Collector cum District Magistrate, East Champaran, Motihari.
4. The District Programme Officer (I.C.D.S.), East Champaran, Motihari.
5. The Child Developmetn Programme Officer, Patahi, District-East
Champaran, Motihari.
6. Pramila Kumari, Lady Supervisor, Gram Panchayat Raj, Gonahi, Ward No.
07, P.S.-Patahi, District-East Champaran.
7. Manju Kumari, wife of Baliram Prasad, Resident of Village-Gonahi, Ward
No. 07, P.S.-Patahi, District-East Champaran.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Madhurendra Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Government Pleader (5)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
ORAL ORDER
2 18-04-2026 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:-
“A. A writ in nature of Certiorari or any other
appropriate writ / writs, order / orders for
quashing the order dated 13.02.2025 passed
in Anganbadi Appeal Case No. 14 of 2019 by
the learned Collector-cum-District
Magistrate, East Champaran, Motihari,
Patna High Court CWJC No.9200 of 2025(2) dt.18-04-2026
2/4
whereby and whereunder the learned
Collector affirmed the order dated 18.12.2018
passed in Case No. 94 of 2017 by the District
Programme Officer, I.C.D.S. Motihari, East
Champaran, and dismissed the Appeal filed by
the petitioner.
B. A writ in the nature of Mandamus or any
other appropriate writ /writs, order/orders
direction commanding the respondent for the
following:-
I. To appoint the petitioner on the post of
Anganbari Sevika at Anganbari Centre No.
110 situated at Gram Panchayat Raj, Gonahi,
Ward No. 07, P.S. Patahi, District - East
Champaran, considering this aspect that in
provisional and final merit list, the petitioner's
position stand 1st and above the Respondent
No. 7 and also to pay the remuneration
thereto.
II. To direct the Respondent / Authorities to
declare the appointment of the Respondent
No. 7 Manju Kumari on the post of Anganbari
Sevika at Centre No. 110, situated at Gram
Panchayat Raj, Gonahi, Ward No. 07, P.S.
Patahi, District -East Champaran null and
void.
C. To any other relief / reliefs to which the
petitioner is entitled for and the Hon'ble court
deems fit and proper.”
Patna High Court CWJC No.9200 of 2025(2) dt.18-04-2026
3/4
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that she
has not been selected only on the ground that her husband was
working as Home Guard and monthly income was Rs.12,000/-.
Counsel submits that, admittedly, a Home Guard is not a
government servant, and payment is not made on a monthly
basis, rather, it is made according to the work performed/done .
He submits that her documents have not been considered at all
and the D.P.O. as well as the Collector, both have decided this
case against the petitioner without consideration of the
documents.
4. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand,
submits that the order passed by the D.P.O. as well as by the
Collector, both are reasoned order and it has been found that the
petitioner’s husband was getting money at that very time as
more than Rs.12,000/- per month and the decision has been
taken on the basis of the letter received from the commandant of
the said district under which the petitioner’s husband was
working.
5. After hearing the parties, it transpires to this Court
that this matter is relating to Anganwadi Sevika/Sahayika which
is to be guided by Anganwadi Sevika/Sahayika Appointment
Guidelines of 2016, whose Rule 6 categorically states that if any
Patna High Court CWJC No.9200 of 2025(2) dt.18-04-2026
4/4
person either in the government or non-government having
monthly income of Rs.12,000/- or more, then his wife/daughter
in law shall not be entitled for appointment on the post of
Anganwadi Sevika & Sahayika.
6. Upon perusal of the orders impugned here, it
transpires to this Court that the petitioner’s husband working as
Home Guard and on the basis of a letter issued by the
Commandant obtained by the authorities concerned, it has been
ascertained that he was earning a monthly income of Rs.
12,000/- or more during the said period.
7. As such, according to the rule mentioned above,
this Court is of the view that the decisions taken by the D.P.O
and the Collector have been made in accordance with law and
there is no need of any interference. Hence, this writ petition
stands dismissed.
(Dr. Anshuman, J)
Divyansh/-
U
Checking your session…