NITU KUMARI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Sanat Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.C. to Addl. Advocate General - 4 as well as Sri Vivek Anand Kumar, learned counsel who has appeared on behalf of respondent no. 11.

(2.) The petitioner has approached this Court invoking its writ jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, with a prayer to quash a decision of the Aam Sabha dated 07-06-2007, whereby; the claim of the petitioner for being appointed as Anganwari Sevika in Mahuli (Madhya) Anganwari Centre was turned down on the ground that mother of the petitioner was Anganwari Sevika in different Centre and father of the petitioner was in government service.

(3.) A plea has been taken that in the merit list, petitioner's name was included at serial no. 2 and the candidate, who was placed at serial no. 1, was not eligible to be considered and her case was rejected. Similarly, petitioner's claim was rejected on the plea that her parents were in service and ignoring the case of the petitioner, the person, who was having much lesser marks than the petitioner, i.e. respondent no. 11, was selected. The selection of respondent no. 11 was challenged by the petitioner before the District Magistrate and the District Magistrate initially directed the concerned Child Development Project Officer (hereinafter referred to as C.D.P.O.) to take step for considering the selection of the petitioner after cancelling the selection of respondent no. 11. While the matter was pending subsequently, a clarificatory order was issued and earlier cancellation order was cancelled on the plea that as per Guideline of Anganwari Sevika and Sahayika of 2006, particularly Clause 3 (M+) of the Guideline, the petitioner was rightly not considered for being selected.