RINKU KUMARI Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the respondent no.9.

(2.) In this case, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 19.01.2010 passed in Service Appeal No.88 of 2009 by the Commissioner, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur, whereby and where- under he has set aside the order passed by the District Programme Officer, Muzaffarpur, as contained in memo no.467 dated 15.06.2009 and allowed the appeal, whereby and where-under reinstated Sangeeta Devi, respondent no.9, as an Anganbari Sevika at centre no.253, within the Panchayat Raj, Meenapur, District- Muzaffarpur.

(3.) The short facts of this case are that an advertisement was published for appointment of Anganbari Sevika for Centre no.253, village- Meenapur Nankal under Panchayat Raj Meenapur, District- Muzaffarpur, wherein altogether six applications, including the petitioner and respondent no.9 having been filed for appointment on the said post. The petitioner has qualification of "?Madhyama "? from Bihar Sanskrit Board, Patna, claiming to be equivalent of matriculation. Aam Sabha vide its proceeding dated 15.09.2008 appointed Sangeeta Devi, respondent no.9, as Anganbari Sevika, as claimed by the petitioner that Sangeeta Devi, respondent no.9 should not be appointed as she had qualification of "?Vidya Vinodani "? from Prayag Mahila Vidyapeeth, Allahabad, which has not been recognized by the State of Bihar and having said that the appointment of respondent no.9 is per se illegal.