IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12290 of 2011
Anuradha Kumari W/o Abhay Kumar Singh R/o Vill+ PO-
Gavandri, Anchal Dhaka, PS- Kundwa Ghainpur, Distt- East
Champaran ---------------------------------Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar
2. The Principal Secy. Social Welfare Depatt, Govt. of Bihar,Patna
3. The District Magistrate, East Champaran
4. District Welfare Officer, East Champaran, Distt- East
Champaran
5. The S.D.O. Sikrahna, Distt.- East Champaran, Motihari
6. The C.D.P.O. Dhaka, Distt.- East Champaran
7. The Secy. Gram Panchayatraj Gavandri , Block- Dhaka, Distt.-
East Champaran-------------------------------Respondents
----------------------------------
2 23.9.2011 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Annexure-7 is the order passed by the District Magistrate,
East Champaran Motihari in a matter of remand issued by the Court in
CWJC No. 9690 of 2009. The order is dated 13.6.2011. Petitioner is
seeking quashing of the said order on the ground that the petitioner
had a better claim, better qualified than Smt. Punam Kumari and
therefore, she should be appointed on the post.
The order of the District Magistrate has taken into
consideration the various omissions committed by Mukhiya and
Panchayat Secretary which indicates that they have given a complete
go-bye to the laid down procedure in the matter of selection and
appointment on the post of Anganbari Sewika. The glaring infirmity is
one to many and the Court is not required to take note of all of them.
But in absence of any rebuttal to those findings the Court is of the
opinion that the District Magistrate has done no wrong by ordering
fresh exercise for selection to be carried out and appointment of
Punam Kumari was declared to be illegal which was no selection in
the eye of law.
2
If glaring infirmity did exist in the manner in which the
authority had exercised their power for selection then the entire
selection stands vitiated. No person whatever be her ability and
competence can claim appointment arising out of that transaction
because what is bad for one is bad for others as well.
The proper course therefore is to hold a fresh selection by
ensuring that the guidelines laid down in this regard are followed in
true letter and spirit and kind of deserving person get selected for such
appointment.
The Court would not like to interfere with the impugned
order as that will amount to perpetuating an illegality. However, there
is freedom to the petitioner or all such eligible candidates to
participate in the selection process as and when it is held.
It goes without saying that the new exercise will be
carried out by the concerned authority to fill up the post looking at the
urgency of making such centers functional.
Writ petition is dismissed with the observation as above.
(Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)
RPS