Harish Kumar, J.—Heard Mr. Ajay Kumar, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Smt. Kumari Amrita, learned Government Pleader-3 for the State.

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 02.11.2021 passed in Anganwadi Appeal No. 128 of 2019 by the Collector, Samstipur whereby he allowed the appeal preferred by the respondent no. 8 and set aside the order dated 19.01.2019 passed by the District Programme Officer, Samastipur in Aganwadi Case No. 178 of 2018 and upheld the selection of the respondent No. 8 as Aganwadi Sevika of Aganwadi Cenrtre No. 366, Alampur Gram Panchayat, District Samastipur.

3. The short facts which led to the filing of the writ petition are that pursuant to an advertisement for selection of Aganwadi Sevika and Sahiyaka, the petitioner along with others applied for the post of Aganwadi Sevika on 17.01.2018. Merit list was duly prepared for selection of Aganwadi Sevika/Sahiyaka; the name of the petitioner finds at Sl. No. 1 in the merit list with 76% of marks. Aam Sabha was held on 16.02.2018. However despite the fact, the petitioner secured first position in the merit list and found eligible to be appointed as Aganwadi Sevika she did not get appointment letter and in his place, the respondent no. 8 was selected as Aganwadi Sevika.

4. On the other hand, the respondent no. 8 obtained only 58.60 % marks, much less than the petitioner, who obtained 76% marks, nonetheless her case was placed for consideration and, as such, the petitioner filed objection before the respondent no. 6. It transpired that the petitioner has been found unsuited on account of the fact that the marriage of the petitioner was solemnised with Ajeet Kumar Aryan after the cut off date of 16.02.2018, when the Aam Sabha was held.

5. Being aggrieved, the petitioner approached before the District Programme Officer, ICDS by filing Aganwadi Case bearing No. 179 of 2018. The said Aganwadi Case came to be allowed in favour of the petitioner and after cancelling the selection of the respondent no. 8, a direction has been given to select the petitioner in terms of the scheme, copy of the order of the District Programme Officer dated 20.07.2018 has been placed on record as Annexure-5 to the writ petition. The order of the District Programme Officer, ICDS was put to challenge by the respondent no. 8 before the Collector, Samastipur vide Aganwadi Appeal No. 128 of 2019 and finally the same came to be allowed vide order dated 06.12.2021 ignoring the materials available on record that the marriage of the petitioner was solemnised on 29.11.2017 itself, is the contention of learned Advocate for the petitioner. The order of the Collector, Samastipur is under challenge in the case in hand.

6. Learned Advocate for the petitioner contended that the certificate issued by the priest of the Bidhyapati Mandir, Samastipur, where the marriage was solemnised categorically demonstrates that the marriage of the petitioner with Ajeet Kumar Aryan was solemnised before the cut off date and as such non-selection of the petitioner by treating her marriage on any subsequent date is out and out unsustainable and wholly without jurisdiction. The impugned order of the Collector, Samastipur is based upon hypothesis and suspicion, without any cogent material, thus the same is illegal and fit to be set aside.

7. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader for the State submits that the Collector, Samastipur has taken note of every aspect of the matter and it has been found that the marriage of the petitioner was solemnised on 18.02.2018. Manipulation and tampering has been found in the marriage register, based upon which certificate has been issued by the Bidhyapati Mandir. It is also the contention of the learned Advocate for the State that since there is disputed question of fact with regard the date of the marriage, the same ought not to be considered while exercising the writ jurisdiction. The petitioner has always been at liberty to approach before the Civil Court of compete