Patna High Court
Annu KumariversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
Holding
The defect was a procedural irregularity, not an illegality, and therefore the Single Judge's dismissal of the writ petition was upheld.
Summary
The appellant, Annu Kumari, challenged the appointment of respondent No.6 as Anganbari Sevika, arguing that the merit list published under ICDS guidelines placed her higher and that the additional five disability marks granted to the respondent by the Aam Sabha were unauthorized. The District Programme Officer had initially set aside the appointment in her favour, but the Collector later restored the appointment, holding that the disability weightage was rightly applied albeit at a later stage. The appellant filed a writ petition, which the Single Judge dismissed, characterising the procedural defect as an irregularity rather than an illegality. On appeal, the High Court examined whether the Aam Sabha had jurisdiction to alter the merit list and whether the later inclusion of disability marks vitiated the selection process. Relying on established principles of limited judicial review in appointments, the Court found no patent illegality, mala fides, or violation of mandatory provisions. Consequently, the Court affirmed the Single Judge’s view that the defect was merely procedural and upheld the appointment. The intra‑court appeal was therefore dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether the defect in the selection process, namely the late inclusion of disability weightage, constitutes a mere irregularity or an illegality warranting judicial interference under Article 226.
- Whether the Aam Sabha had jurisdiction under ICDS guidelines to modify the published merit list or grant additional marks.
- Whether the procedural correction of the merit list at a subsequent stage renders the entire selection process void.
- Scope of judicial review in matters of selection and appointment for Anganbari Sevika under ICDS.
Subjects
- selection
- appointment
- merit list
- disability weightage
- procedural irregularity
- judicial review
- ICDS guidelines
- Anganbari Sevika
- intra-court appeal
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.1155 of 2024
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.20506 of 2018
======================================================
Annu Kumari, Wife of Munna Rao Resident of Village- Khairahani Done
Ward no. 3, Police Station- Gobrahiya District-West Champaran.
... ... Appellant
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Director, I.C.D.S. Directorate, Patna.
2. The District Magistrate-Cum-Collector, West Champaran, Bettiah.
3. The District Programme Officer, I.C.D.S., West Champaran, Bettiah.
4. The Child Development Project Officer C.D.P.O. Ramnagar, West
Champaran, Bettiah.
5. The Mukhiya Naurangiya Done Panchayat, Ramnagar Block, West
Champaran, Bettiah.
6. Smt. Chandmuni Devi Wife of Shambhu Sah Resident of Village-
Khairahani Done,Police Station- Gobrahiya, District- West Champaran,
Bettiah.
... ... Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant : Mr. Lokesh Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Government Advocate (07)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN KUMAR JHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH)
Date : 30-06-2026
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The present intra court appeal is directed against the
order dated 07.10.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in
C.W.J.C. No.20506 of 2018, whereby the writ petition preferred by
the appellant came to be dismissed.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.1155 of 2024 dt.30-06-2026
2/12
3. The present appeal arises out of a dispute regarding
selection and appointment to the post of Anganbari Sevika for
Centre No.198, Khairahani Done, under the Child Development
Project, Ramnagar.
4. Applications were invited from eligible candidates in
terms of the guidelines governing the Integrated Child
Development Services (ICDS). Pursuant thereto, a merit list was
prepared and published on 09.03.2015. In the said merit list, the
appellant was placed at Serial No.2 with 67.2% marks, whereas
respondent no.6 was placed at Serial No.3 with 65% marks. The
candidate placed at Serial No.1 was subsequently found ineligible
on the ground that she did not belong to the concerned Poshak
Kshetra.
5. Thereafter, respondent no.6 was selected and
appointed to the post of Anganbari Sevika. Aggrieved by such
selection, the appellant preferred Appeal Case No.02 of 2015
before the District Programme Officer (ICDS), West Champaran,
Bettiah. By order dated 31.05.2016/14.06.2016, the District
Programme Officer allowed the appeal and set aside the
appointment of respondent no.6, observing that the appellant stood
above respondent no.6 in the published merit list and that the
additional five marks allegedly granted to respondent no.6 did not
Patna High Court L.P.A No.1155 of 2024 dt.30-06-2026
3/12
form part of the merit list. Consequent thereto, the Child
Development Project Officer, Ramnagar, issued Memo No. 288
dated 30.08.2016 appointing the appellant as Anganbari Sevika for
Centre No. 198, and she joined the post.
6. Respondent no.6 thereafter challenged the aforesaid
order before the Collector, West Champaran, Bettiah, in Case No.
R.M. 47 of 2016-17. By order dated 30.07.2018, the Collector set
aside the order passed by the District Programme Officer and
directed restoration of the post in favour of respondent no. 6. The
Collector held that respondent no. 6 was entitled to additional
weightage of five marks on account of disability and, upon
inclusion of such marks, her total score exceeded that of the
appellant.
7. It is the case of the appellant that the merit list
published on 09.03.2015 was never revised by the competent
authority and that respondent no.6 had not filed any objection to
the merit list within the period prescribed under the ICDS
guidelines. It is further the case of the appellant that the benefit of
five additional marks on account of disability was granted by the
Aam Sabha, which, according to the appellant, had no authority to
alter or modify the published merit list. It is also the case of the
appellant that she fulfilled all the eligibility conditions, including
Patna High Court L.P.A No.1155 of 2024 dt.30-06-2026
4/12
the requirement of belonging to the concerned Poshak Kshetra,
and was entitled to appointment on the basis of her position in the
merit list.
8. Aggrieved by the order dated 30.07.2018 passed by
the Collector, West Champaran, Bettiah, the appellant preferred
CWJC No. 20506 of 2018 before this Court challenging the said
order. The said writ petition came to be dismissed, the operative
portion of the said order reads as follows:
“6. After hearing the parties, it transpires to
this Court that the present petitioner has
appeared in the proceeding before the
District Magistrate-cum-Collector, West
Champaran, Bettiah but could not appear on
the date of final hearing which has been
acknowledge by the District Magistrate,
Bettiah in his order. Upon bare reading of the
said order, it transpires that the District
Magistrate, Bettiah has passed reasoned and
speaking order in which it has been admitted
that the C.D.P.O. has not taken action at the
appropriate stage which was to be taken
within the stipulated time, but subsequently,
when matter went to the AamSabha, then
Aam-Sabha has taken decision and rectified
all the wrongs which was committed.
7. As such, this Court is of the firm view that
such mistake which has been committed is
basically irregularity and not illegality, and
hence, this Court is not inclined to interfere
Patna High Court L.P.A No.1155 of 2024 dt.30-06-2026
5/12
with order dated 30.07.2018 passed by the
Collector, West Champaran, Bettiah in case
No. R.M. 47/2016-17.
8. Accordingly, the present writ petition
stands dismissed.”
9. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
learned Single Judge erred in dismissing the writ petition by
treating the defect in the selection process as a mere irregularity. It
is submitted that under the applicable ICDS guidelines, any
objection to the merit list is required to be filed before the Child
Development Project Officer (CDPO) within the prescribed period
and is to be decided by the competent authority. According to the
appellant, the Aam Sabha had no jurisdiction to entertain or decide
objections relating to the merit list or to grant additional marks to
any candidate.
10. It is further submitted that respondent no.6 was
granted five additional marks on account of disability through the
proceedings of the Aam Sabha, although no revised merit list was
issued by the competent authority. Learned counsel contends that
the Aam Sabha thereby assumed powers vested in the statutory
authorities and acted without jurisdiction. It is argued that any
rectification in the merit list could only have been undertaken by
Patna High Court L.P.A No.1155 of 2024 dt.30-06-2026
6/12
the competent authority in accordance with the prescribed
procedure and not by the Aam Sabha.
11. Learned counsel further submits that the
appointment of respondent no.6 on 28.04.2015 was made contrary
to the ICDS guidelines and that the learned Single Judge failed to
appreciate the legal infirmities in the selection process. It is,
therefore, submitted that the impugned judgment and order are
unsustainable in law and liable to be set aside.
12. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the respondents submits that the learned Single Judge has rightly
dismissed the writ petition after considering the facts and the
applicable guidelines. It is submitted that the impugned judgment
does not suffer from any error of law or jurisdiction warranting
interference by this Court in the present appeal. It is further
submitted that the selection and appointment of respondent no.6
were made in accordance with the applicable provisions and,
therefore, no case for interference is made out.
13. The limited issue which arises for consideration
before this Court is as to whether the learned Single Judge was
justified in declining to interfere with the order of the Collector on
the ground that the defect in the selection process was merely an
irregularity, which stood rectified during the selection process, and
Patna High Court L.P.A No.1155 of 2024 dt.30-06-2026
7/12
not an illegality warranting interference under Article 226 of the
Constitution.
14. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
upon perusal of the materials available on record, this Court finds
that the controversy essentially revolves around the grant of five
additional weightage marks to respondent no.6 on account of
disability and the stage at which such benefit came to be taken into
consideration during the selection process.
15. The appellant contends that the Aam Sabha had no
jurisdiction under the applicable ICDS Guidelines to entertain
objections to the merit list or to alter the merit position of the
candidates after publication of the merit list. According to the
appellant, any correction in the merit list could have been made
only by the competent authority, namely, the Child Development
Project Officer, within the prescribed period, and the subsequent
grant of five additional marks by the Aam Sabha rendered the
entire selection illegal. The Collector, however, while exercising
appellate jurisdiction, found that respondent no.6 was entitled to
disability weightage under the applicable guidelines and that such
benefit had inadvertently not been extended at the appropriate
stage. It was in these circumstances that the Collector treated the
omission as having been rectified during the selection process and
Patna High Court L.P.A No.1155 of 2024 dt.30-06-2026
8/12
restored the appointment of respondent no. 6. The learned Single
Judge concurred with the said view and declined interference.
16. At the outset, it is well settled that in matters relating
to selection and appointment, the scope of judicial review is
extremely limited. The writ Court does not sit as an appellate
authority over the decision of the selecting authority and does not
re-appreciate the comparative merits of the candidates.
Interference is warranted only where the decision-making process
is shown to be vitiated by arbitrariness, mala fides, violation of
mandatory statutory provisions or patent perversity. In Dalpat
Abasaheb Solunke v. Dr. B.S. Mahajan, reported in (1990) 1
SCC 305, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the Court cannot
sit in appeal over the assessment made by the Selection Committee
and its power of judicial review is confined to examining the
legality of the decision-making process. The relevant part of the
said order reads as follows:
“12. It will thus appear that apart from the fact
that the High Court has rolled the cases of the
two appointees in one, though their appointments
are not assailable on the same grounds, the court
has also found it necessary to sit in appeal over
the decision of the Selection Committee and to
embark upon deciding the relative merits of the
candidates. It is needless to emphasise that it is
not the function of the court to hear appeals over
Patna High Court L.P.A No.1155 of 2024 dt.30-06-2026
9/12
the decisions of the Selection Committees and to
scrutinize the relative merits of the candidates.
Whether a candidate is fit for a particular post or
not has to be decided by the duly constituted
Selection Committee which has the expertise on
the subject. The court has no such expertise. The
decision of the Selection Committee can be
interfered with only on limited grounds, such as
illegality or patent material irregularity in the
constitution of the Committee or its procedure
vitiat- ing the selection, or proved mala fides
affecting the selection etc. It is not disputed that
in the present case the University had constituted
the Committee in due compliance with the
relevant statutes. The Committee consisted of
experts and it selected the candidates after going
through all the relevant material before it. In
sitting in appeal over the selection so made and
in setting it aside on the ground of the so called
comparative merits of the candidates as assessed
by the court, the High Court went wrong and
exceeded its jurisdiction.”
17. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the
present case, we find that the appellant has not questioned the
eligibility of respondent no. 6 to claim disability weightage under
the applicable guidelines. The challenge is confined to the stage at
which such weightage was accorded and to the authority through
Patna High Court L.P.A No.1155 of 2024 dt.30-06-2026
10/12
whom such correction came to be recognised. Thus, the
controversy is essentially procedural in nature.
18. The Collector, being the appellate authority under
the governing scheme, examined the entire selection process and
recorded a categorical finding that the competent authority had
failed to extend the admissible benefit of disability weightage at
the appropriate stage and that the omission stood rectified during
the selection process. Such finding is essentially one of fact. The
appellant has not been able to demonstrate that the said finding is
perverse, unsupported by the record or contrary to any mandatory
provision of the governing guidelines.
19. Merely because the procedural correction took place
at a subsequent stage would not, by itself, render the entire
selection process void, particularly when the candidate concerned
was otherwise entitled to the benefit under the governing
guidelines. No material has been placed before this Court to
establish that respondent no.6 was ineligible to receive the
disability weightage or that the correction resulted in any fraud,
mala fide exercise of power or violation of any mandatory
statutory prescription. In the absence of any such infirmity, the
alleged procedural lapse cannot be elevated to an illegality so as to
nullify the entire selection.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.1155 of 2024 dt.30-06-2026
11/12
20. This Court has independently examined the
reasoning assigned by the Collector as well as the judgment
rendered by the learned Single Judge. Upon such independent
consideration, we are in agreement with the conclusion reached by
the learned Single Judge that the defect, if any, was in the nature of
a procedural irregularity which did not vitiate the selection itself.
We are unable to find any jurisdictional error, perversity or
manifest illegality either in the order passed by the Collector or in
the judgment under appeal.
21. It is also trite that an intra-court appeal is directed
against the correctness of the judgment under appeal. Unless the
findings recorded by the learned Single Judge are demonstrated to
be contrary to law or unsupported by the record, interference
would not be warranted. In the present case, for the reasons
independently recorded hereinabove, we find ourselves in
complete agreement with the view taken by the learned Single
Judge.
22. In view of the aforesaid, the issue is answered
against the appellant and in favour of the respondents. The
judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge do not call
for any interference.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.1155 of 2024 dt.30-06-2026
12/12
23. Accordingly, the present intra court appeal stands
dismissed.
24. Pending application(s),if any, shall also stand
disposed of.
(Sudhir Singh, J.)
(Ranjan Kumar Jha, J.)
Gaurav Kumar,
Atul/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE N.A.
Uploading Date 07.07.2026
Transmission Date N.A.
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.