Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Pat) 1591
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Anshuman, J
Rita Kumari
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8579 of 2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sunil Kumar Yadav, Siva Sankara Rao Borra
For the Respondents:Government Advocate (10)
Appointments made under the 2006 Margdarshika for Anganwari workers are valid if eligibility was met at the time of selection, and subsequent changes in ward mapping or catchment area definitions do not retrospectively invalidate such appointments.
Headnote:The petitioner challenged the order dated 15.03.2024 passed by the Additional Collector cum-Additional District Magistrate, Aurangabad, which rejected an appeal regarding the selection of an Anganwari Sevika. The petitioner sought appointment based on Circular I.C.D.S. (D) 2783 dated 03.10.2006, arguing that the appointment should be based on the beneficiary area and that the private respondent was not competent due to ward mapping discrepancies. The primary issue was whether the appointment of the private respondent was valid given that subsequent mapping placed the respondent in a different ward. The court reasoned that the appointment was made under the Margdarshika for appointment of Anganwari Sevika or Sahayika, 2006, at a time when centers were not ward-based and both candidates were residents of the same area. The court held that subsequent mapping does not invalidate an appointment made according to the rules applicable at the time of selection. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the present writ application stands dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedural history and reliefs sought in the selection dispute of anganwari sevika. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments regarding eligibility, merit lists, and the impact of ward mapping on appointment. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. validity of appointments based on the 2006 margdarshika regardless of subsequent mapping changes. (Para 9 , 10) |
ORAL ORDER
2 03-02-2026 Heard Learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Counsel for the State and learned counsel for the private respondents.
2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the present writ petition has been filed with the following reliefs:-
a) To quash the order dated 15.03.2024 passed in Aanganbari Sevika, selection appeal No. 62/2020, 415/2020 passed by learned Addl. Collector cum- Addl. District Magistrate Aurangabad issued vide Memo No. 1179 dated 16.03.2024 where by and whereunder the appeal prefured by the petitioner rejected without any assigned reason.
(b) To direct the competent authority to select the petitioner on the basis of Circular issued by Circular I.C.D.S. (D) 2783 dated 03.10.2006 section 3 (g) in which it was mentioned that appointment should be based on beneficiary area.
IA NO: 1 OF 2023
IA NO: 2 OF 2023
Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SIVA SANKARA RAO BORRA
Counsel for the Respondent(S): Mr.Government Advocate (10)
The Court made the following: ::ORDER::
Heard Sri Siva Sankar Rao Borra, learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Counsel for the State and learned counsel for the private respondents.
2. The petitioner filed the above writ petition with the following reliefs:-
a) To quash the order dated 15.03.2024 passed in Aanganbari Sevika, selection appeal No. 62/2020, 415/2020 passed by learned Addl. Collector cum- Addl. District Magistrate Aurangabad issued vide Memo No. 1179 dated 16.03.2024 where by and whereunder the appeal prefured by the petitioner rejected without any assigned reason.
(b) To direct the competent authority to select the petitioner on the basis of Circular issued by Circular I.C.D.S. (D) 2783 dated 03.10.2006 section 3 (g) in which it was mentioned that appointment should be based on beneficiary area.
3. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the dispute is relating to appointment of Anganwari Sevika in Ward No.3 of Chandaul Village for which post was advertise in the year 2009. He further submits that it is the second round litigation. Earlier, the petitioner had moved in C.W.J.C. No.19537 of 2011, which was disposed of vide order dated 02.12.2011, with specific direction to remit back the matter before the Divisional Commissioner and adjudicate the same. He further submits that the said order has been passed thereafter, who has pleased to remanded the matter before the District Magistrate, Aurangabad to pass final order. He further submits that the final order has been passed which is presently impugned here in which this aspect has not been considered at all by the Original Authority as well as Appellate Authority that the petitioner belongs to Ward No.4, whereas Anganwari is situated at Ward No.3.
4. Counsel further submits that according to mapping panji, the petitioner is the competent person to be appointed and respondent No.7 is not competent for the same. He further submits that the Appellate Authority has not considered the case of the petitioner at all and affirmed the order passed by the Original Authority dated 11.09.2014 as correct.
5. Counsel further submits that the writ petition be allowed and appointment of private respondent be removed and in place thereof, the petitioner may be appointed.
6. Counsel for the State, on the other hand, submits that it is true that it is second round of litigation in which the private respondent was held to continue by the Original Authority as well as the Appellate Authority. He further submits that the decision was well reasoned and there is no need of any interference.
7. Counsel further submits
