Usha Kumari @ Usha Devi vs State Of Bihar and Ors

Anshuman, J

Heard Learned Counsel for the petitioner and Learned Counsel for the State.

The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following reliefs:-

“I. For issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 26.04.2025 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Bhagalpur, communicated vide Memo No. 590, dated 26.04.2025 contained in Annexure-6 by which he set- aside the order of District Magistrate, Banka, passed on 08.08.2023 communicated vide memo No. 15, dated 03.01.2024 contained in Annexure-3, District Magistrate, Banka had cancelled the selection of Asmita Rani and directed the Child Development Programme Officer, (Bal Vikash Pariyojna Padadhikari), Barahat, District-Banka  to  ensure  selection  of  the petitioner, Usha Kumari on the post of Anganbari Sevika. But Divisional Commissioner, Bhagalpur has set aside the order of  District Magistrate, Banka and directed District programme Officer, ICDS, Banka to ensure restoration of Asmita Rani on the post of Sevika.

II.  For  issuance  of  further writ in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondents concerned to select and joining of the petitioner be made/confirmed on the post of Anganbari Sevika in obedience of order of the District Magistrate, Banka, because petitioner is legally  selected  candidate  for the  post of Sevika.

III. For holding and declaring that petitioner is fit candidate legally for the post of Aanganbari Sevika as selected  by  the  Aam  Sabha  held  for  the purpose.”

Learned Counsel for the petitioner has taken the plea that the order passed by the Commissioner is absolutely illegal and not sustainable in the eye of law. He submits that the general meeting was conducted on 07.02.2011 for selection of Sevika in Anganbari Centre, and resignation was made prior to the said date. Therefore, the finding of Collector is absolutely in accordance with law, but finding of Commissioner is not in accordance with law and, therefore, Counsel submits that the order dated 26.04.2025 passed in Miscellaneous Anganwari Appeal No. 46 of 2023-24 by the Divisional Commissioner, Bhagalpur, be set aside.

Learned Counsel for the State, on the other hand, submits that the order passed by the Commissioner is a well reasoned order and the situation under which the order passed by the Commissioner is well discussed. Counsel submits that the advertisement for the appointment on the post of Anganbari Sevika has been published in the month of January, 2011 and on the date of advertisement the petitioner was not competent to enter into the process and on the said date the private respondent has higher marks. It also transpires from the order that the husband of the petitioner was holding the post of Sarpanch during the period of advertisement and his resignation had been accepted with effect from 11.02.2011; whereas the decision of Aamsabha was finally taken on 07.02.2011.

In this view of the matter, this Court finds that there is no case of petitioner and this writ petition is dismissed.