Heard Mr. Indu Bhushan Prasad Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Vidya Sagar learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 5 and JC to learned Government Pleader No. 1 for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks quashing of the appointment of respondent no. 5 Kanchan Devi on the post of Anganbari Sevika in village Sungathia which is part of Dharhara Maharana Grampanchayat and it is further prayed that the respondents be directed to appoint the petitioner on that post. The petitioner admittedly is resident of village Sungathia and member of scheduled caste. According to her in the said village population of scheduled caste persons is more than of any other category. A meeting of Aam Sabha was held on 27.5.04 in which six persons including the petitioner and respondent no. 5 had filed their applications. It appears from the said proceeding that Aam Sabha considered only the case of the petitioner and respondent no. 5 and found that the petitioner was not residing in the village and further her financial condition was quite strong and she was unable to answer any question. Consequently, considering that she is not residing in the village and her financial condition is strong respondent no. 5 was selected. It appears from the said proceedings that the case of none of the other four candidates was taken into consideration at all by the Aam Sabha for the reason best known to it.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the guidelines issued by the State Government by Circular dated 13.6.98. Paragraph 5(3) of the said circular provides that Anganbari Sevika must be permanent resident of village where Anganbari centre is situated and if Anganbari centre is situated in a tola of a village then she must be resident of that tola and further she must be among the beneficiary. Relying upon the same learned counsel submits that respondent no. 5 admittedly is resident of village Maharana. Therefore she was not eligible for being selected as Anganbari Sevika with respect to the village Sungathia. In respect of the claim of the petitioner learned counsel submits that since the petitioner belongs to the said village and further she also belongs to the category of scheduled caste which has the largest population in the village, she ought to have been selected by Aam Sabha whereas respondent no. 5 was not even eligible for selection. In support of the said contention learned counsel relies upon the decision of this court in case of Smt. Kanti Devi & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar and others reported in 2005 (4) PLJR 432, in which it has been laid down that the basic object and purpose of bringing the selection at Tola level is to ensure that the person to be engaged is selected by the people whose children would be taught by the selected person. This having not been done, despite a clear cut direction to the effect, vitiates the selection itself. Learned counsel further relies upon another decision of this Court in the case of Renu Kumari Vs. State of Bihar & Ors., reported in 2006 (2) PLJR 654, wherein it has been laid down that before process of selection it was found that person possessed the requisite qualification and the same is wrongly shown has not possessed, the same vitiates the selection and it is to be quashed.

4. Learned counsel for respondent no. 5, on the other hand, sought to contend that the appointment of respondent no. 5 is valid because she belongs to the same Gram Panchayat in which Anganbari centre is located. He has further justified selection made on the basis of voter list pertaining to assembly election. The voter list was issued by the Election Commission of India with respect to Polling Centre No. 177 in which the main village/town has been stated as Sungathia and the Panchyat has been shown as Maharana and the name of petitioner appears at serial no. 126 on the said voter list whereas name of respondent no. 5 appears at serial no. 685 on the said voter list.

5. It is thus, contended by the learned counsel for the r