Madhuresh Prasad, J. – Heard the parties.

2. The petitioner has approached this Court being aggrieved by the order passed by the District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Lakhisarai on 13.09.2017, whereby and whereunder he has set aside the order passed by the District Programme Officer, Lakhisarai on 23.11.2015 in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner seeks a direction upon the authorities to select the petitioner as Aganwadi Sevika for centre no. 267 at ward no. 7 in village Chaukada, in terms of the order dated 23.11.2015 of the District Programme Officer, Lakhisarai.

3. The brief factual background is that an advertisement dated 11.12.2014 was issued for selection of Aganwadi Sevika at the centre in question, where petitioner was one of the applicants. The petitioner as well as the private respondent no. 8, amongst others, were applicants and participated in the process pursuant to the said advertisement. The Aam Sabha proceedings were conducted on 03.02.2015. It is admitted position that selection of Aganwadi Sevika, to the centre in question, was to be from amongst the extremely backward caste category as the area was predominantly comprising of EBC. Another fact which is not disputed is that the petitioner as well as private respondent no. 8 both belonged to EBC category. It is also not disputed that the petitioner was awarded 76.7 marks, whereas the private respondent no. 8 was awarded 68.78 marks at the Aam Sabha. Petitioner, therefore, was the first empanelled candidate at the Aam Sabha conducted on 03.02.2015.

4. The Aam Sabha observed discrepancy in the date of birth being claimed by the petitioner; vis-a-vis her age as declared in her application form. Holding the petitioner to be overage she was not selected. The respondent authorities proceeded to select the private respondent no. 8. The petitioner has challenged the said selection before the District Programme Officer, Lakhisarai. The District Programme Officer, Lakhisarai, got the Matriculation certificate produced by the petitioner along with her application, verified by the Bihar School Examination Board, Patna (hereinafter referred to as “BSEB”). The Secretary, BSEB vide letter dated 04.08.2015 bearing memo no. 3175 has reported the petitioner’s date of birth to be 10.10.1975. The report indicates that the petitioner had appeared for Matriculation examination conducted in the year 1990. Since the petitioner’s date of birth was verified as 10.10.1975, the District Programme Officer directed the Child Development Project Officer, respondent no. 6, to issue selection letter to the petitioner. The selection letter was issued by the CDPO on 03.02.2016.

5. The private respondent no. 8, being aggrieved by petitioner’s selection under orders of the respondent no. 5, filed an appeal before the District Magistrate, which appeal has been allowed by the impugned order dated 13.09.2017 directing for issuance of selection letter in favour of private respondent no. 8. The petitioner has thus assailed the order of the District Magistrate dated 13.09.2017. It would be relevant to take note of one undisputed fact that if the petitioner’s claimed date of birth, i.e. 10.10.1975, is correct then the petitioner was eligible for participation in the selection process and for selection as Aganwadi Sevika in terms of the Aganwadi Sevika/Sahayika Selection Guidelines, 2011 applicable to the selection process.

6. The petitioner’s counsel submits that since the Matriculation certificate submitted by the petitioner in favour of her candidature recorded her date of birth as 10.10.1975, and the certificate had duly been verified from the BSEB, by the respondent no. 5, the order of the respondent no. 5 dated 23.11.2015, directing for the petitioner’s selection as Aganwadi Sevika did not suffer from any infirmity. Order of the District Magistrate is ignoring the verification of petitioner’s date of birth and matriculation certificate. This order dated 13.09.2017 directing for issuance of selection