PATNA, India, July 18 -- Patna High Court issued the following judgment on July 10:
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State as well as learned counsel for the respondent no.8.
2. The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of appropriate writ or mandamus and any other appropriate writ or writs, commands, direction/directions and for setting aside the order dated 09.01.2018 passed by the District Magistratecum-Collector, Aurangabad (Bihar) passed in Anganwari Seva Appeal No. 150 of 2015 (Annexure-P/3) arising out of order dated 07.01.2015 passed in Complaint Case No. 01/2015 as well as the merit list of Anganwari Centre Code No.14, Karma Bhagwan (Batwan), Ward No.6, Aurangabad Sadar, DistrictAurangabad (Bihar) (Annexure-P/1) issued by the C.D.P.O. Aurangabad (Bihar) dated 27.09.2013 by which the C.D.P.O., Aurangabad (Bihar) has committed irregularities in preparation of merit list by violating the norms and Rules 5.1 of the Guidelines of Sevika and Sahayika-2011.
3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that an advertisement for appointment to the post of Aanganwari Sevika/Sahayika was published in the district of Aurangabad and copy of the merit list was prepared on the basis of marks obtained by the candidates on 27.09.2013. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that he has raised objection before the competent authority to re-examine the entire selection process because in the selection process, the Rule of Guideline 5.1 of Aangwanwari Sevika/Sahayika, 2011 has not been followed and on this ground earlier respondent no.8 had been terminated by the District Programme Officer, Aurangabad vide order dated 25.10.2008 and a criminal case is also pending against respondent no.8. Counsel further submits that being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the District Programme Officer, an Anganwari Sevika/Sahayika Selection Appeal No. 01/2014 was filed. Counsel further submits that the Anganwari Sevika/Sahayika Guidelines of 2011 is applicable in the case of petitioner and private respondent. He further submits that the respondent no.8 got highest percentage of marks and the said marks were calculated in violation of Rule 5.1 of the Anganwari Sevika/Sahayika Guidelines, 2011 which clearly states that marks of extra subject shall not be added for calculation of the percentage but ignoring the same the Collector of the District has passed order.
4. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the District Collector, Aurangabad, the petitioner preferred the present writ petition before this Hon'ble Court. He submits that this is the technical point on the basis of which he is relying his case. In support of his argument, he has annexed the mark-sheet issued by the Bihar State Education Board obtained by the private respondent by which she claims that the optional paper indicated is Economics in which private respondent has obtained 83 marks which has been calculated for counting of the percentage. Counsel at the cost of repeatation submits that such calculation of marks of optional paper is in gross violation of Rule 5.1 of the Guidelines of 2011.
The rest of the document can be viewed at https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/MTUjODM1OSMyMDE4IzEjTg==-1j--ak1--Ya3UZqsw=
Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.
