RAVI RANJAN,J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the State.
(2.) This intra court appeal appeal is directed against the judgment dated 07.02.2018 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court by which the writ petition filed by the appellant has been dismissed.
(3.) In fact, this is the second round of litigation. In the earlier round, the respondent no.10 was the writ petitioner in CWJC No.16074 of 2004 which was filed for quashing the appointment of respondent no.6 therein (the present appellant/writ petitioner). The challenge was made to her appointment on the ground that the same was not in accordance with the Government's Guidelines contained in Circular Letter No.1129 dated 13.06.1998 issued by the Secretary, Welfare Department, Government of Bihar which was required to be followed in the matter of selection of Aanganwari Sevika in particular the condition no.5 of the said Circular wherein it was laid down that if the qualification of two candidates were identical then the widow/abandoned women of the same category was to be given preference in appointment. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition, quashed the appointment and remanded the matter to the authorities to reconsider the case of the writ petitioner. The relevant passage from the aforesaid decision is extracted as under:- " .......... The admitted position is that both the petitioner and respondent no. 6 belong to backward class, both are matriculates and both have almost the same income. In the said circumstances it can hardly be doubted that the petitioner would be entitled to preference as laid down in condition no. 5. In fact from the minutes of the Amsabha dated 10.3.2003 as contained in Annexure-A to the counter affidavit of the State Government it is evident that the said aspect of the matter has at all been taken into consideration by the Gram Sabha while considering the candidates for selection. Hence, the decision has to be held as illegal and unjustified since a relevant material has been taken into consideration while reaching the decision. For the reasons aforesaid the writ petitioner is allowed. The selection of respondent no. 6 made by the Amsabha at its meeting dated 10.3.2003 as contained in Annexure-A and the consequential order dated 31.3.2003 as contained in Annexure-B to the counter affidavit of the respondents no. 1 to 5 is quashed and the matter is remanded to the authorities to reconsider the case of the petitioner in accordance with the aforesaid observations/principles of law as laid down in this order. The authorities are directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner within four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to cost". (emphasis is ours);