PATNA, India, Aug. 21 -- Patna High Court issued the following judgment on July 22:
Heard Learned counsel for the petitioner and Learned counsel for the State.
2. Counsel for the petitioner has filed the present writ petition for quashing the order dated 03.05.2025 passed by the Commissioner, Saran Division, Chapra in Anganwadi Revision Case No.45 of 2021 (annexure-P/4) whereby the selection of the petitioner for the post of Sahayika at Anganwadi Centre No.148, Ward No.3, Panchayat Raj Saraiya Ratnakar, District- Saran has been cancelled.
3. Counsel further submits that the petitioner has participated in the selection process conducted in the year 2019 pursuant to advertisement issued by the CDPO and Aam Sabha was held on 05.08.2019. Initially respondent No.6 was selected, but upon filing Anganwadi Appeal Case No.47 of 2020 before the DPO, Saran and a detailed order was passed on 07.06.2021 after hearing the petitioner and respondent No.6. Thereafter, selection letter was issued for the petitioner vide Letter No.150 dated 30.06.2021. Since then, the petitioner was working on the said post.
4. Counsel further submits that thereafter the respondent has filed revision case before the Commissioner i.e., Revision Case No.45 of 2021, which was not only allowed rather entire selection process has been cancelled by the order of the revision. He further submits that the said order is absolutely illegal and violative.
5. Counsel for the State on the other hand submits that there are 2 facts which is very much important in this case. Firstly, the appointment of petitioner by virtue of appellate order was conditional. It was very much clear that the appointment of the petitioner shall be subject to decision of the revision case and secondly, in the revision application, it has been categorically mentioned and observed by the Revision Court that according to mapping panji, the majority class was BC-I category, but in the advertisement, majority class was shown as general category. Therefore, the Revisional Authority has cancelled the entire advertisement and selection process and directed to make a fresh advertisement within a specified period.
6. After hearing the parties, it transpires to this Court that the petitioner is not challenging the said mapping panji about which indication has been made before the Revisional Authority and as per the present rule relating to appointment of Anganwadi Sevika/Sahaika, those belong to majority class, have to be appointed in the said ward, and therefore, this Court finds that there is no case of the petitioner as he failed to raise any illegality in the order of the Commissioner.
7. With the aforesaid observations, the present writ application stands dismissed.
Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.