Kajal Kumari v. The State of Bihar

Sonali Kumari, Wife of Sri Nikesh Kumar, Resident of Ward No.- 12, Dimaha Diyara, P.S.- Ismailpur, District- Bhagalpur.

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : For the Respondent/s : Mr. Rajeev Singh with Mr.Alok Kumar Singh, Advocates. Mr. Md. Obaidullah AC to SC-10 Mr. Md. Raisul Haque (SC10) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD ORAL ORDER 2 22-09-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

By the instant writ application, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 12/10/2022 passed by the District Program Officer (for short DPO) ICDS, Bhagalpur, (respondent no.5) canceling the petitioner selection as Anganbari Sevika, as contained in Annexure-11 to the writ petition. The order dated 07/12/2022, passed by the Divisional Commissioner Bhagalpur (Respondent No.3) in Miscellaneous (Anganbari) Appeal Case Patna High Court CWJC No.4730 of 2023(2) dt.22-09-2023 No. 50 of 2022-2023 has also been put to challenge, as contained in Annexure-13 to the writ petition.

It is submitted by the petitioner’s counsel that the petitioner is the most eligible candidate for being selected as Sevika for the center in -question. No objection has been raised by anyone at the Aam Sabha or in terms of Clause- 2 of the 2016 Guidelines issued by the ICDS Directorate, which required filing of an objection prior to the selection of Sevika. All the actions has been taken by the authorities after the petitioner’s selection and, therefore, is unsustainable.

The learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, submits that the private respondent No. 8 was aggrieved by petitioner’s selection and had preferred Miscellaneous Aanganbari Case No. 78 of 19-20, before the Respondent No.5 which was rejected. The order was assailed in Miscellaneous Anganbari Revision Case No. 68 of 20-21 before the respondent No.3, who remanded the matter back to the Respondent No.5 vide order dated 28-12-2021, as contained in Annexure-9 to the writ petition. The Respondent No.3 had remanded the matter to enable consideration of a report submitted by the (Respondent No.6) dated 06/09/2019. The Respondent no.5, therefore, restarted the proceedings and vide order dated 12/10/2022 has Patna High Court CWJC No.4730 of 2023(2) dt.22-09-2023 directed for removal of the petitioner. The petitioner assailed these findings before the Respondent No.3 in Miscellaneous (Anganbari) Appeal Case No. 50 of 2022-23, wherein, the Respondent No.3 set aside the order dated 12/10/2022 passed by Respondent No.5. In the exhaustive and speaking order, the Respondent No.5 has recorded that a mistake in mapping of the center was committed and certain persons have been left out in the mapping thereby causing the centre to be considered as predominantly comprising of EBC, whereas the same should have been for BC. It is also pointed out that it is apparent from order dated 17/01/2021 (Annexure-6), passed in Miscellaneous (Aanganbari) Case No. 78 of 2019-2020 that the issue had arisen at the Aam Sabha dated 29/05/2019 itself and mapping was twice undertaken.

Having considered the submissions this Court would find that the impugned orders of the Respondent No.5 as well as Respondent No.3, recorded a concurrent finding in the order dated 17-01-2021 (Annexure-6) and order dated 12-10-2022 (Annexure-11) receptively regarding mapping being incorrect. The mapping with respect to the beneficiaries within a ward is of great significance, as it is the determinative factor for the class, from which the Sevika is to be selected for a Patna High Court CWJC No.4730 of 2023(2) dt.22-09-2023 center. The Scheme, therefore, lays great emphasis on mapping, since better dissemination of welfare measure can be ensured if the Sevika is selected, as per the genuine mapping of the beneficiaries in the ward. The same having been found incorrect by two competent authorities, this Court, while exercising writ jurisdiction, is not inclined to sit in appeal over the findings of these two authorities.

The petitioner is not a government servant and the decision is by a competent authority under the Guidelines, after due opportunity and hearing of the parties, as also with reference to report regarding the mapping submitted by the competent District Officials. This Court is thus not inclined to interfere with the impugned orders by invoking its extraordinary and discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The writ application is, thus, devoid of merit and the same is dismissed. (Madhuresh Prasad, J) shyambihari/- U