The court affirmed that selections for Anganwadi Sevika are not subject to civil service protections and emphasized timely actions within procedural guidelines.

JUDGMENT :

HARISH KUMAR, J.

Heard the parties.

2. The petitioner is aggrieved with the order dated 27.08.2024 passed by the Court of Collector, Madhubani in Anganwari Appeal Case No. 106 of 2023, whereby the learned Collector has set aside the order dated 26.09.2023 passed by the District Programme Officer, Madhubani in Anganwari Miscellaneous Case No. 29 of 2022 filed by the petitioner against the selection of the respondent no.6 on the post of Anganwari Sevika for the Gram-Harbhanga, Panchayat-Deep East, Ward no.6, Anganwari Centre no. 181.

3. The short facts which led to the filing of the present writ petition are that pursuant to an advertisement published on 13.06.2018, the petitioner along with others applied for the post of Anganwari Sevika. In terms of the guideline, the majority class of the said Centre was Extremely Backward Caste.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that on 10.10.2019, a public notice was circulated for holding the Aam Sabha; fixing the time at 11:00 AM on the same day itself at a public place, for selection of Anganwari Sevika/Sahaika. The petitioner duly acknowledged the notice, however, on account of the fact that the place of Aam Sabha was not mentioned in the notice, she could not be able to find out as to where the Aam Sabha was held. It is further contended that, in fact, no such Aam Sabha was held on 10.10.2019 and surreptitiously the private respondent no.6 had been selected on the post of Anganwari Sevika. In the meantime, on account of outbreak of COVID-19 Pandemic, the petitioner could not approach the concerned C.D.P.O. or the District Programme Officer. When the normalcy restored, in the year 2022, the petitioner immediately filed a complaint before the District Collector, Madhubani, which was referred to the District Programme Officer, Madhubani for decision. The complaint of the petitioner was captioned as Anganwari Miscellaneous Case No. 29 of 2022; after hearing the parties and considering the materials available on record, the selection of the private respondent no.6 was found illegal and accordingly it was cancelled. Against the order of the District Programme Officer, Madhubani, the private respondent no.6 has preferred Appeal No. 106 of 2023 before the Collector, Madhubani. The petitioner entered her appearance and filed a detailed reply, however, the same was not duly considered and taking note of the fact that the complaint application of the petitioner was filed after three years from the date of the selection, the same has been held as time barred and, accordingly, allowed the appeal after setting aside the order of the District Programme Officer, vide order dated 27.08.2024.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the petitioner has obtained the copy of the proceedings of Aam Sabha under the Right to Information Act, 2005, which is also placed on record as Annexure-P/2. There is no reference to the notice dated 01.10.2019, which has referred in the impugned order, whereby allegedly information was given for holding the Aam Sabha on 10.10.2019. The impugned order passed by the District Collector is wholly illegal and without application of mind, based upon erroneous facts, is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner. It is lastly contended that the guidelines for selection of Anganwari Sevika/Anganwari Sahayika clearly stipulates that the Aam Sabha must be held on a prescribed time and date at a specified public place but it has not been done nor this issue has been dealt with by the Collector in his order, impugned herein.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State drawing the attention of this Court to the order passed by the District Collector as contained in Annexure-P/1 to the writ petition has contended that while passing the impugned order, apart from the fact that each and every contentions of the petitioner have been taken note of; the Collector has categorically averred that, for the first time, C.D.P.O., Lakhanaur, v