NIRMAIA KUWAR NIRMALA KUMARI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed this writ petition with a prayer for a direction to the respondents to consider her case for selection as Anganbari Sewika for Dadhapi Centre of Dadhapi Gram Panchayat, P.S. Goh, Block -Goh, District -Aurangabad, in place of respondent no. 6 who has allegedly been selected without considering the guidelines contained in Government's Circular, dated 13.6.1998.

(2.) THE petitioner's case is that she alongwith others including the respondent no. 6 had applied for selection on the post of Anganbari Sevika of the abovementioned Centre and after consideration of their case respondent no. 6, Sakila Devi, has been selected violating condition no. 5. of the Circular contained in Letter No. 1129 dated 13.6.1998 issued by the Secretary, Welfare Department, Government of Bihar. In terms of the said condition no. 5 where the qualification is the same then the widow -abandoned women of the same category is to be given preference. The counsel for the petitioner states that both the petitioner and respondent no. 6 are matriculate but the petitioner in addition is widow and, therefore, she ought to have been appointed in preference to respondent no. 6 it is further submitted that the petitioner after the aforesaid selection of respondent no. 6 filed her representation before the competent authority but nothing has been done in the matter.

(3.) MR . Rajendra Prasad Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent no. 6 contends that the Aam sabha has acted in accordance with the prescribed selection procedure and has rightly selected respondent no. 6 assigning good reasons for the same. He has referred to Annexure -A to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State respondents containing the proceeding of the Aam sabha on 10.3.2003 and the chart attached to the same from which it appears that the petitioner is a matriculate in 2nd Division whereas respondent no. 6, Sakila Devi, is a matriculate in the First Division having obtained 566 marks which is the highest among all the seven candidates for the post of Anganbari Sevika. He further points out that the Gram Sabha had clearly mentioned the reasons for selection as the respondent no. 6 being economically weaker has income of Rs. 21,000/ - per month as compared to the petitioner who has income of Rs. 25,000/ - per month. In the light of the aforesaid facts learned counsel submitted that the selecting authority had considered the case of the candidates, who had applied and after due consideration it has taken a decision assigning the reason for the same. According to him the reasons are assigned and, thus, the decision of the Gram Sabha is neither illegal nor its conclusions are absurd. That being the position, it is contended by him that the writ court cannot substitute its own reason and select other candidate when the selection authority has complied with the requirements of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.