Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1082 (PAT)

Rinku Devi v. State of Bihar

2018-07-13

SHIVAJI PANDEY

body2018
JUDGMENT : Shivaji Pandey, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 2. In this present case, the petitioner is challenging the memo vide no. 1225-1/I.C.D.S., dated 10.09.2014, whereby and whereunder the District Magistrate, Saharsa has recorded that private respondent has secured 62.44 percent marks whereas the petitioner has secured 57.40 percent marks as well as the Gotni who is Chairman of PACS cannot be treated as Jan Pratinidhi, placing reliance on circular issued by the State Government. 3. The matter relates to appointment of Aanganbari Sevika of Centre No.184 situated at Parariya, Sonbarsha Block, Saharsa. 4. The petitioner and private respondent alongwith others had applied for the post of Aanganbari Sevika but only two candidates remained in fray and others applications were rejected on different grounds which has been mentioned in the order of the District Magistrate. In the present case the only controversy is that whether the Chairman of the PACS is to be classified to be Jan Pratinidhi or not? As per the petitioner, they will be treated to be Jan Pratinidhi and disqualified in view of the guideline issued by the Government whereby certain class of applicants has been declared to be disqualified for the post of Aanganwari Sevika. 5. As per the petitioner, the respondent no.10 will be treated to have been excluded in terms of clause 4.8 of the Sahayika Selection Guidelines 2011 and submitted that any person who is elected through the process of election will be treated to be a Jan Pratinidhi. If this logic is accepted then any elected person of any society will be treated to be a Jan Pratinidhi which will bring absurd situation as the member of Housing Society also conduct election is President will also be treated elected representative, certainly cannot be treated to be a Jan Pratinidhi. In similar manner the Chairman of the PACS is elected by the registered farmer of the Panchayat. In view of the Circular and guideline issued by the Government of Bihar whereby guideline has been issued by the Chairman of the PACS will not be treated to be Jan Pratinidhi. 6. In such view of the matter, respondent no.10 has better mark than to petitioner, the grievances raised by petitioner has no substance. 7. Accordingly this writ petition is dismissed.