IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that the validity of educational qualifications and adherence to selection guidelines are crucial in the appointment process for public positions, ensuring fairness and transparency.

JUDGMENT :

Harish Kumar, J.

Heard the parties.

2. The challenge in the present Letters Patent Appeal is made to an order/judgment of this Court dated 22.06.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWJC No. 5544 of 2021 whereby and whereunder the writ petition has been allowed after setting aside the order of the District Magistrate (Appellate Authority) upholding the order of the District Programme Officer dated 05.06.2018 under Memo No. 391.

3. The grounds put forth by the learned Advocate for the appellant, challenging the order/judgment of the learned Single Judge, inter alia, is that the writ petitioner-respondent no. 9 herein was not even present in the Aam Sabha proceedings dated 08.02.2017 and 05.02.2017 conducted for the selection of Anganbadi Sevika. It is further contended that respondent no. 9 only submitted supplementary marksheet of the year 2014 in which she has obtained only 35 marks in mathematics out of 100 marks, despite the fact her name has been included in the merit list prepared for the appointment of Anganbadi Sevika. The application submitted by the respondent no. 9 for the post of Anganbadi Sevika clearly demonstrates her passing year of Matriculation Examination as 2013 which could not be said to be correct as the respondent no. 9 had submitted supplementary marksheet of the year 2014. Moreover, the proceeding of the Aam Sabha clearly suggests that in the column of the percentage of marks against the name of the petitioner it is shown that the document is not received.

4. Per contra, learned Counsel for the State submitted that the learned Single Judge has considered all the contentions raised by the appellant and negated the same.

5. Having heard the rival submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties and after perusing the materials available on record, this Court finds that pursuant to an advertisement for selection of Anganbadi Sevika of Centre No. 79 in Ward No. 8 in the district of Sitamarhi, the candidates, including the petitioner and respondent no. 9, have submitted their applications. Admittedly, the predominant caste category of Centre No. 79 was the General Category and in terms of the guidelines 2016, in case of unavailability of candidate of a General Category, selection was to be made on the basis of preference to a candidate of Scheduled Tribes, Scheduled Castes, Extremely Backward Class and Backward Class in that sequence. There is no dispute that the petitioner belongs to a member of Extremely Backward Class and thus on account of unavailability of candidate of Scheduled Tribe/Scheduled Caste, the next preference category shall be Extremely Backward Class. However, despite the aforesaid facts, the respondent no. 9 was not selected compelling her to approach before the District Programme Officer by filing a complaint alleging irregularities in the selection process. The District Programme Officer having found substance in the complaint of respondent no. 9 has accepted her complaint under order dated 05.06.2018 and directed to ensure a fresh selection procedure after making necessary correction in the merit list under the 2016 guidelines.

6. The appellant being aggrieved preferred an appeal against the afore noted order before the District Magistrate, Sitamarhi in Anganbadi Appeal No. 38 of 2018 which came to be allowed vide order dated 17.12.2020. The District Magistrate while allowing the appeal has found that the respondent no. 9 did not pass the matriculation examination and in such circumstances the order of the District Programme Officer was held to be unsustainable.

7 In the aforesaid premise we examine the contention of the appellant; firstly with regard to nonappearance of respondent no. 9 in the counselling. The aforenoted contention of the appellant has no basis for the simple reason that the District Programme Officer, Sitamarhi under its order dated 05.06.2018 has categorically observed that the respondent no. 9 was present in the counselling and in this regard the Ward Mem