JUDGMENT : Jyoti Saran, J. 1. Heard Mr. Ravi Ranjan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Banwari Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent No. 8. There is no representation on behalf of the State. 2. With the consent of the parties the writ petition has been heard with the view to final disposal at the stage of admission itself. 3. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 8.3.2010 passed by the Commissioner, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur in Service Appeal No. 198 of 2009 whereby the Divisional Commissioner while setting aside the order dated 27.8.2009 of the Collector, Muzaffarpur enclosed at Annexure-6, has upheld the appointment of the respondent No. 8 as Anganbari Sevika, Tatama Tola, Kanti, Kushi, Ward No. 4, Centre No. 15 Block-Kanti in the district of Muzaffarpur. 4. Facts of the case briefly stated is that following a selection process, a merit list was prepared which put the respondent No. 8 at serial No. 1 while the petitioner was at Serial No. 4. The Aam Sabha in consideration of the guidelines issued by the Department of Social Welfare in 2008, was of the opinion that since the father of the private respondent held a Government Post hence she was disqualified under Clause 3@M of the guidelines in force, for appointment as a Anganbari Sevika. The candidature of the applicant appearing at Serial Nos. 2 and 3 was also rejected on disqualification and which placed the petitioner whose name appeared at Serial No. 4, to be the most eligible candidate for appointment as Anganbari Sevika. It is following such deliberation that the writ petitioner was appointed on the post of Anganbari Sevika. 5. Feeling aggrieved, the private respondent approached this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 6169 of 2009 but chose to withdraw the writ petition to approach the District Collector, Muzaffarpur and the appeal was dismissed. Feeling aggrieved, the private respondent filed the appeal in question and the Divisional Commissioner by the order impugned dated 8.3.2010 upheld the contention of the private respondent on her claim for appointment on the basis of her position at Serial No. 1 of the merits list. Feeling aggrieved, the private respondent filed the appeal in question and the Divisional Commissioner by the order impugned dated 8.3.2010 upheld the contention of the private respondent on her claim for appointment on the basis of her position at Serial No. 1 of the merits list. The Divisional Commissioner taking note of the circumstance which led to the appointment of the petitioner, has held that a mere circumstance that the father of the private respondent was a Government servant could not have been a basis for her disqualification as according to the Divisional Commissioner, after marriage, the private respondent had no interest in the income of her father. 6. The argument advanced by Mr. Ravi Ranjan learned counsel for the petitioner to question the order of the Commissioner is that it runs counter to the statutory prescription. According to Mr. Ranjan, there is no dispute on the fact that the father of the private respondent was holding a Government post and which disqualifies her under Rule 3(M+). He submits that the Selection Committee in consideration of the guidelines had taken a right decision and which was endorsed and confirmed by the District Magistrate when the objection filed by the private respondent was rejected vide Annexure-6. 7. He submits that the interpretation given by the Commissioner to uphold the claim of the private respondent would amount to legislating on the issue because the explanation does not confirm to the statutory guidelines in Clause 3@M. Learned counsel in reference to a Bench decision of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 2120 of 2014 (Vimal Kumari vs. State of Bihar) has submitted that the statutory guidelines in so far as it disqualifies an applicant on her father holding a Government post, came up for consideration in the case and this Court in consideration of the prescription, has interpreted the guidelines to hold that unless the parental home of an applicant is within the district, she cannot be disqualified on this count. 8. Learned counsel has referred to the amendments introduced in the guidelines in the year 2011 to submit that Clause 4.9 has further clarified the provisions and if the father/ close relatives of an applicant is holding a Government/semi Government post anywhere in the district, she stands disqualified. 8. Learned counsel has referred to the amendments introduced in the guidelines in the year 2011 to submit that Clause 4.9 has further clarified the provisions and if the father/ close relatives of an applicant is holding a Government/semi Government post anywhere in the district, she stands disqualified. He submits that in so far as the present case is concerned, although the private respondent is a resident of a different Tola and of a different Block-Musahari, but since she is a resident of the same district, she is disqualified. 9. As I have noted there is no representation on behalf of the State. Mr. Banwari Sharma learned counsel for the private respondent has opposed the writ petition. While accepting the legal position he submits that since the provision of the Rule 3@x of the Guidelines in force at the relevant time required an applicant to be a permanent resident of the Tola concerned, any disqualification inter-alia on grounds that the father or the close relative of the applicant was holding a Government or semi Government post has to be read alongside this mandatory qualification. According to Mr. Sharma unless the father/close relative of an applicant holding Government/semi Government post or any of the post mentioned in the disqualification clause, was also the resident of the Tola concerned, the disqualification would not apply nor its scope can be enlarged. He submits that although this Court in the case of Vimal Kumari (supra) has interpreted the guidelines in reference to a district in which the appointment process is carried out but a harmonious construction of the provision of Rule 3@x read alongside Rule 3@M would require a consideration of the disqualification clause in reference to the Tola concerned where the appointment is to be carried out and not beyond. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and I have perused the records. 11. The appointments were made in the year 2008 and when it is the Guidelines of 2006 notified by the Social Welfare Department vide Notification dated 3.10.2006 which was in force. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and I have perused the records. 11. The appointments were made in the year 2008 and when it is the Guidelines of 2006 notified by the Social Welfare Department vide Notification dated 3.10.2006 which was in force. Clause (3) of the Guidelines enumerates the eligibility qualification and for the purpose, Clause 3 x - k and M- would be relevant which reads as follows:- ^^¼x½ vkWaxuckM+h lsfodk ml Vksyk@xkWao@eksgYyk dh LFkk;h fuoklh gksxh] ftl Vksyk@xkWao@ eksgYyk esa vkWaxuckM+h dsUnz vofLFkr gks] ;kfu mls vkWaxuckM+h dsUnz dh lsok {ks= dk fuoklh gksuk vfuok;Z gSA ¼?k½ vkWaxuckM+h lsfodk Vksyk@xkWao@eksgYyk dh cgq gksxhA dqokWajh yM+fd;ksa dk p;u bl in ds fy, ugha fd;k tk;sxkA lsfodk ,oa mlds ifr dk uke mDr Vksyk@xkWao@eksgYyk ds fy, cus ernkrk lwph esa gksuk pkfg,A ernkrk lwph esa uke ugha gksus ds fLFkfr esa lsfodk ,oa mlds ifr dks mDr Vksyk@xkWao@eksgYyk ds fuoklh ds fy, pquko vk;ksx dk QksVks izek.k i= ;k p;u gsrq vkosnu tek djus ds fnu rd vapykf/kdkjh }kjk fuxZr vkoklh; izek.k i= tks N% ekg iwoZ ls igys dk fuxZr u gks nsuk vfuok;Z gksxkA ¼M-½ yksd lsodksa eqf[k;k] iapk;r lfefr ds lnL;@okMZ lnL;@ftyk ifj"kn ds lnL; vkfn Lo;a ;k muds fj'rsnkj fofHkUu ljdkjh lkefxz;ksa ds fodzsrkvksa tSls tu forj.k iz.kkyh fodzsrk] ?kqeUrq fdjkslhu rsy dk fodzsrk] vUrjfoHkkxh; Mkd[kkuk dehZ bR;kfn ljdkjh ,oa v)Zljdkjh lsodksa ds fj'rsnkj ;Fkk] csVh@iRuh@iq=o/kw dk p;u bl in ds fy, ugha fd;k tk;sxkA** 12. The provisions on a literal interpretation would reflect that while the applicant has to be a married lady, she also has to be a permanent resident of the tola, village or Mohalla where the centre is situated. While the provisions of Rule 3@ x and k requires the applicant to be a married lady, the disqualification clause at Clause 3@M also refers to a daughter although unmarried daughters are not eligible for appointment. Meaning thereby, even if the father of the married lady happens to incur any of the disqualification of Clause 3@M she would be disentitled to hold the post. The provision as it stood in the year 2006 sweepingly disqualified all applicants whose parents or close relatives were holding the posts mentioned in the clause with no restrictions. Meaning thereby, even if the father of the married lady happens to incur any of the disqualification of Clause 3@M she would be disentitled to hold the post. The provision as it stood in the year 2006 sweepingly disqualified all applicants whose parents or close relatives were holding the posts mentioned in the clause with no restrictions. The guidelines were amended in the year 2010 and when the disqualification relating to the parents/close relative holding Government post, was deleted, which is confirmed by Clause 4.6 of the Guidelines, 2010 which reads as under: ^^4-6- tuizfrfuf/k;ksa dh cgw fj'rsnkj bl in ds fy, v;ksX; gksxhA fofHkUu ljdkjh lkefxz;ksa ds fodzsrkvksa tSls tu forj.k iz.kkyh fodzsrk] ?kqeUrq fdjkslhu rsy ds fodzsrk dh iRuh@cgw@fj'rsnkj bl in ds fy, v;ksX; gksaxsA** The guidelines however enlarged its scope to include the widow applicant. 13. The guidelines were again amended in the year 2011 and the clause relevant for the contest herein is present at Clause 4.7, 4.8, 4.9 and 4.10 which reads as under:- ^^4-7- vkWaxuckM+h lsfodk ml xkWao dh cgq gksuh pkfg,A vfookfgr efgyk dk p;u lsfodk ds in ij ugha fd;k tk;sxkA ;fn ml Vksys@xkWao dh csVh LFkk;h :i ls ekWa ds ;gkWa fuokl djrh gS] mudk uke ernkrk lwph esa ntZ gS rFkk pquko vk;ksx dk QksVks izek.k i= rFkk vapykf/kdkjh }kjk fuxZr vkoklh; izek.k i= tks N% ekg iwoZ ls igys dk fuxZr u gksA miyC/k gS rks muds p;u ij Hkh fopkj fd;k tk;sxkA 4-8- tuizfrfuf/k;ksa dh iRuh@cgw@fj'rsnkj bl in ds fy;s v;ksX; gksxhA fj'rsnkj ls vFkZ gSA iRuh] cgw] cgu] uun] HkkStkbZ] iq=h rFkk blds lkFk efgyk tuizfrfuf/k ds ekeys esa muds ifr ds lgksnj HkkbZ dh iRuh] iq=h vkSj cgwA 4-9- lacaf/kr ftys esa inLFkkfir ljdkjh@v)Zljdkjh lsodksa dh iRuh@cgw@fj'rsnkjksa dk p;u lsfodk in ij ugha fd;k tk;sxkA fj'rsnkj ls vFkZ gSA iRuh] cgw] cgu] uun] HkkStkbZ] iq=hA 4-10- fofHkUu ljdkjh lkefxz;ksa ds fodzsrkvksa tSls tu forj.k iz.kkyh fodzsrk] ?kqeUrq fdjklu rsy ds fodzsrk dh iRuh@cgw@fj'rsnkj bl in ds fy, v;ksX; gksaxsA fj'rsnkj ls vFkZ gS & iRuh] cgw] cgu] uun] HkkStkbZ] iq=hA** 14. The eligibility was further extended to include married daughters who were permanently staying with their mother. The eligibility was further extended to include married daughters who were permanently staying with their mother. The disqualification clause relating to the parents and close relative holding Government/semi Government post is present at Clause 4.9 and provides that in case they are posted in the concerned district meaning thereby, within the district where the centre is located, it would be a disqualification for appointment. 15. The guidelines were again amended in the year 2013 and the disqualification relating to the parents/close relatives holding Government post as per the amended provision of Clause 4.9 continues to disqualify an applicant whose parents/close relative is posted in the concerned Panchayat/Block/Circle/Sub-Division or District and runs as under:- ^^4-9- lacaf/kr iapk;r@iz[kaM@vapy@vuqeaMy ,oa ftyk esa inLFkkfir ljdkjh dsUnz ljdkj ,oa jkT; ljdkj@v)Zljdkjh iq:"k deZpkjh@inkf/kdkjh dh iRuh@cgw@vU; fj'rsnkj dk p;u lsfodk in ij ugha fd;k tk;sxkA fj'rsnkj ls vFkZ gS & ekWa lkSrsyk@nRrd iq= ,oa iq=h HkkHkh vFkkZr cM+s HkkbZ dh iRuh] iq=h] cguA rFkk blds lkFk ljdkjh dsUnz ljdkj ,oa jkT; ljdkj@v)Zljdkjh efgyk deZpkjh@inkf/kdkjh ds ekeys esa muds ifr ds lgksnj HkkbZ dh iRuh] cgq] iq=h vkSj uun lsfodk@lgkf;dk ds in ij p;u gsrq v;ksX; gksxhA lafonk vFkok ekuns; vk/kkfjr deZpkjh ;k inkf/kdkjh ftudh ekfld vk; :i;s 6000@& N% gtkj :i;s ;k mlls de gS] muds Åij ;g dafMdk ykxw ugha gksrh gSA** 16. I have consciously recorded the amendments in the guidelines made over the period in so far as it disqualifies the applicant to hold the post of Anganbari Sevika if her parents/close relative are holding Government/Semi Government and other posts mentioned in the provision. Clause 3@M initially sweepingly had disqualified an applicant on her parents/close relatives holding the posts spelt out in the provision without any exceptions. However this position was clarified in subsequent amendments. 17. This Court thus taking note of the scope and object of the appointments in consideration of the legislative intent and with a purposeful construction of the statutory provisions, recorded its opinion in the case of Vimal Kumari (supra) to hold, that there could not be a blanket ouster of an applicant from appointment to the post of Anganbari Sevika simply because her parent or close relative held any of the post so mentioned in Clause 3@M- as amended from time to time rather it has to be in tune with the residential clause present at Clause 3(Xk). Perhaps, it is appreciating the mischievous application of the disqualification clause that the Department of Social Welfare has limit its application while issuing the amended guidelines in the year 2010, 2011 and further in the year 2013 as detailed herein above which are clarificatory in nature and in tune with the opinion expressed by this Court in the case of Vimal Kumari (supra). 18. The argument of Mr. Banwari Sharma to restrict the disqualification Clause in accordance with the residential clause, would be contrary to the guidelines having statutory force. 19. In my opinion thus, the conclusion drawn by the Divisional Commissioner in the order impugned neither is in consonance with the statutory guidelines which was in force in the year 2006 nor is supported by the view taken by this Court in the case of Vimal Kumari (supra) and accordingly the order dated 8.3.2010 passed by the Commissioner, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur in Service Appeal No. 198 of 2009 impugned at Annexure-7 cannot be upheld and is accordingly quashed and set aside. The petitioner stands restored to her post. The writ petition is allowed.