SAVITA KUMARI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AFTER Anganbari Sevikas and Sahaikas were selected by the Aam Sabhas, a list containing the names of the nine selected Sevikas/Sahaikas, was prepared and the same was forwarded to Deputy Development Commissioner, Aurangabad for appointment. Whereas the petitioner No. 1 was recommended for being appointed as Sevika, petitioner No. 2 was recommended for being appointed as Sahaika. Both the petitioners belong to Backward class Community. Of those nine persons, who had been so recommended along with the petitioners, five belonged to Scheduled Caste Community. Those five persons belonging to Scheduled Caste Community were appointed, but the petitioners were not. They were not even intimated why they were not appointed. In the counter affidavit, a boggy of dispute has been raised to the effect that Scheduled Caste Community at the locality in question was in the majority and accordingly, only a member of the Scheduled Caste Community could be recommended for appointment and not a person belonging to 2 Backward Caste Community. The fact remains that in terms of the policy, amongst others, a member belonging to Scheduled Caste or Schedule Tribe or Backward Class or Muslim Community can be appointed as Sevika or Sahaika provided at the centre at which they are to be appointed, they belong to the majority of the Community living there. It further provides that in the event such a person, who is suitable for being appointed, is not available then a Scheduled Caste candidate can be appointed. Therefore, the question is what was the majority of the Community of the place where the petitioners were proposed to be appointed. That can only be ascertained by head counting. Head counting in the legal parlance is known as census. This is in the Union list. The State Government and its officers are, therefore, not authorised to head count. In the last census conducted by the Union of India the members of Backward Class Community were not counted. As a result, there is no authenticated record as to which Community was in majority at the locality where the petitioners had been recommended to be appointed. There is no authentic record to show the composition of the majority of the Community of that locality is comprised of Backward Class. In such a situation, in terms of the said policy, only Scheduled Caste people can alone be appointed and naming of Backward 3 Class Community in the said scheme is only an attempt to cajole the backward class community with intention of not reaching anything to them. Unfortunately, having been born to Backward Class fathers, the petitioners have, thus, been duped. A meaningful reading of the scheme along with the applicable law would show that except Scheduled Caste candidates, at present, no one else can be appointed as Anganbari Sevika or Sahaika. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed.