ANURADHA KUMARI Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Ravi Ranjan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Arvind Kumar Sinha, A.C. to S.C.14 for the State and Mr. Dudhnath Singh learned counsel for the private respondent.

(2.) The petitioner prays for issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 10.3.2016 passed by the respondent no.3, the District Magistrate, Supaul in Anganbari Appeal No. 263 of 2014/43 of 2015 whereby he has been pleased to set aside the order dated 18.10.2014 passed by the District Programme Officer, the respondent No.4 in Anganbari Case No. 10 of 2014 whereby the appointment of the respondent No.6 had been set aside. Thus restoring respondent no.6 to her status as Anganabri Sevika, Centre no. 259, Gram Panchayat Raj, Guriya in the district of Supaul.

(3.) The facts stands noted in the order of this Court passed on 18.07.2017 and briefly stated is that it is following a process for appointment of an Anganbari Sevika, Centre Code no. 259 Gram Panchayat Guriya, Ward No.1, Block Triveniganj in the district of Supaul vide advertisement dated 27.6.2013 that the private respondent was appointed on the post coming at Serial No. 1. The writ petitioner raised objection questioning the eligibility of the private respondent to the post inter alia on grounds that the Gotani (wife of the brother of the husband) of the private respondent was in Government Employment drawing a salary more than Rs. 6000/- and which disqualified the respondent from the appointment to the post of Anganbari Sevika, in view of the stipulation present at paragraph 4.9 of the Guidelines circulated through letter dated 10.6.2013 at Annexure-1 of the writ petition. The objection raised by the petitioner was upheld by the District Programme Officer who vide order passed on 18.10.2014 quashed the appointment of the private respondent and directed for a fresh selection process which resulted in the appointment of the writ petitioner. The private respondent preferred a statutory appeal before the Collector, Supaul who after examining the stipulation has allowed the appeal to restore the private respondent to her post and feeling aggrieved the petitioner is before this Court.