IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.973 of 2011
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 8353 of 2011
======================================================
Prem Kumari, wife of Dinesh Yadav, resident of village + P.O.-
Bhawanipur, P.S.-Gopalpur, District-Bhagalpur.
.... .... Petitioner/Appellant
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through its Secretary, Department of Rural
Development, Government of Bihar. Patna.
2. The Director, Department of Rural Development, Government of Bihar,
Patna.
3. The Director, Panchayati Raj, Government of Bihar, Patna.
4. The Divisional Commissioner, Bhagalpur.
5. The District Magistrate, Bhagalpur.
6. The Deputy Development Commissioner, Bhagalpur Division,
Bhagalpur.
7. The Block Development Officer, Block-Rangra Chowk, District-
Bhagalpur.
8. The Block Education Extension Officer, Block-Rangra Chowk, District-
Bhagalpur.
9. The Child Development Project Officer, Block-Rangra Chowk, District-
Bhagalpur.
10. The Mukhia, Gram Panchayat Raj Bhawanipur, Block-Rangra Chowk,
District-Bhagalpur.
11. The Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Raj, Bhawanipur, Block-
Rangra Chowk, District-Bhagalpur.
12. Sangita Kumari, wife of Sanjay Bharti, resident of village + P.O.-
Bhawanipur, P.S.-Gopalpur, District-Bhagalpur.
.... .... Respondents/Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant : Mr. Pramod Mishra, Advocate.
For the Respondents : Mr. Anant Kumar, AC to AAG-2.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA
ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)
5 01-08-2011 Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order dated
11th May 2011 passed by the learned single Judge in above CWJC
No. 8353 of 2011, the writ petitioner has preferred the present
Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent.
Patna High Court LPA No.973 of 2011 (5) dt.01-08-2011
2
According to the appellant, after following due
procedure as envisaged by Paragraphs 5 & 6 of the Guidelines
issued for selection of Anganbari Sevika and Anganbari Sahayika
under the Integrated Child Development Project, the appellant was
selected for the post of Anganbari Sevika. She was however, not
sent for training. On the complaint made by the respondent no. 12,
the Commissioner, Bhagalpur set aside the selection of the
appellant and directed the respondent no. 12 Sangita Kumari to be
appointed as Anganbari Sevika.
The challenge to the said order before the learned
single Judge has failed. Therefore, the present Appeal.
It is not in dispute that the respondent no. 12 was
better qualified than the appellant. Challenge to the appointment
of the respondent no. 12 is that she is the daughter-in-law of a
retired Government employee.
The Commissioner, Bhagalpur held that kith and kin
of a retired Government employee were not excluded from being
appointed as Anganbari Sevika or Anganbari Sahayika. The
respondent no. 12, therefore, had right to be selected and
appointed as Anganbari Sevika, she being better qualified for the
post.
Learned advocate Mr. Pramod Mishra has appeared
for the appellant. He has relied upon Paragraph 5 of the
Guidelines. He has submitted that the relatives of various
categories of persons receiving some benefit from the State
Government have been excluded from being selected as
Anganbari Sevika. A retired Government employee also receives
pension from the Government. His relatives, therefore, cannot be
appointed as Anganbari Sevika.
Patna High Court LPA No.973 of 2011 (5) dt.01-08-2011
3
We do appreciate the submission made by Mr.
Mishra. We may, however, note that the said Paragraph 5
specifically excludes the kith and kin of various categories of
persons including the Government and Semi-Government
servants. However, the relatives of the retired Government
servants are not excluded either expressly or by implication.
In absence of specific exclusion, the kith and kin of a
retired Government employee cannot be excluded from
consideration for appointment as Anganbari Sevika or Anganbari
Sahayika. The respondent no. 12 admittedly having better
qualification, the appellant could not have a better claim than the
respondent no. 12.
The Appeal is dismissed in limine.
(R.M. Doshit, CJ)
Sujit/- (Birendra Prasad Verma, J)