IN THE HIGH COURT OF JURIDICATURE AT PATNA

(CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION)

C.W.J.C. NO.___________ OF 2021

In the matter of an
application under
Article 226 of the
Constitution of
India

AND

In the matter of

Shanti Giri, female, Aged about 54 years, W/O- Shri.

Chandrabhan Puri, R/O- Sewatapur, Siwan, Seotapur, District-
Siwan, Bihar- 841239.

…Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through its Chief Secretary, Government of

Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna-800001, Bihar.
2. Additional Chief Secretary, Social Welfare Department,
Government of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna-800001, Bihar.
3. Director, Integrated Child Development Services, Bihar.
4. District Magistrate, Samastipur, Bihar.
…Respondents
 To,

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, the Chief Justice of the
High Court of Judicature at Patna and His companion Justices of
the said Hon’ble Court.

Humble petition on behalf of

the Petitioner above named

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1. The present Writ petition is being filed before this Hon’ble High
Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the
following reliefs:
i. For the issuance of appropriate writ of
Mandamus or any other or appropriate
writ(s) or order(s) or direction(s)
commanding the Respondent Authorities to
immediately revoke the appointment of
candidates selected on the post of District
Program Assistant by the order of the
Director of Integrated Child Development
Service vide Reference No. ICDS/70010/04-
2018-2662 dated 23.05.2019 as these
selected candidates do not fulfill the
mandatory eligibility criteria mentioned in
the Terms of Reference (TOR) issued by the
Integrated Child Development Services
 under the Pradhan Mantri Matru Vandana
Yojana (PMMVY).
ii. For the issuance of appropriate writ of
Mandamus or any other or appropriate
writ(s) or order(s) or direction(s)
commanding the Respondent Authorities to
appoint the Petitioner on the post of District
Program Assistant, as he fulfills all the
required eligibility criteria as mandated by
the Terms of Reference (TOR) issued by
Integrated Child Development Services
under the Pradhan Mantri Matru Vandana
Yojana (PMMVY) and his name also
appears on the 3rd rank in the final merit list
for the same.
iii. For the issuance of appropriate writ of
Mandamus or any other or appropriate
writ(s) or order(s) or direction(s)
commanding the District Magistrate of
Samastipur to immediately suspend the
District Program Officer and District
Coordinator of Integrated Child
Development Services, Samastipur and
initiate appropriate departmental proceedings
against them for the grave negligence, mala-
fide intention, and laxity shown by them in
the process of appointment of the candidates
 for the post of District Program Assistant of
Integrated Child Development Services,
Samastipur District under the Pradhan
Mantri Matru Vandana Yojana (PMMVY).
AND/OR
iv. Pass any such order or direction which may
deem fit to this Hon’ble Court in the best
interest of the Petitioner.
2. That the instant Writ petition is being preferred among other to
be urged on the following grounds:

GROUNDS
A. Whether the District Program Officer and the District
Coordinator of the Integrated Child Development
Services, Samastipur has committed negligence and
laxity in appointment of the District Program
Assistant in the district of Samastipur in reference
with the vacancies notified in Letter no.
ICDS/70010/04-2018-2662 dated 23.05.2019?
B. Whether the appointment of a candidate for the post
of District Program Assistant as per the order issued
by the Director of Integrated Child Development
Services, in Samastipur district is done in arbitrary
manner with mala-fide intention or not?
C. Whether the Petitioner’s Right to Equality of
Opportunity in matters of Public Employment
 enshrined under Article 16 of the Constitution of India
has been violated or not?
D. Whether the Petitioner’s Right to Equality before law
enshrined under article 14 of the Constitution of India
has been violated or not?

3. That the Petitioner is a citizen of India and he was one of the

applicant for the post of District Program Assistant in the
Samastipur District under Integrated Child Development
Services, under the Pradhan Mantri Matru Vandana Yojana
(PMMVY), who fulfills all the criteria as laid down in the
notification by the Central and State Government as well as the
guidelines and the Terms of Reference issued by the Ministry of
Women and Child Development, Government of India and his
name appears on Sl. No. 3rd of the final merit list.
4. That the Respondent No. 1 is the Chief Secretary of the State of
Bihar, Respondent No. 2 is the Additional Chief Secretary of the
Social Welfare Department of the Government of Bihar,
Respondent No. 3 is the Director of the Integrated Child
Development Services, Bihar, Respondent No. 4 is the District
Magistrate of Samastipur District, Respondent No. 5 is the
District Program Officer of the Samastipur District and
Respondent No. 6 is the District Coordinator of the Samastipur
District.
Brief Facts of the Case
5. That in order to enhance the development and nutrition level
amongst the underprivileged children of the country the Union
 Government in co-operation with state government started the
Integrated Child Development Scheme (ICDS) under the
Pradhan Mantri Matru Vandana Yojana (PMMVY) in
consultation with the Ministry of Women & Child Welfare,
Government of India which laid down the details of the scheme
along with various Block/Project/ District level contractual post
with appropriate pay scale and with minimum academic
qualification along with required and mandatory work
experiences.
6. That on 23.05.2019, the Respondent No. 3 i.e, the Director of the
Integrated Child Development Services (hereinafter ICDS),
Bihar issued a letter vide Letter no. ICDS/70010/04-2018-2662
dated 23.05.2019 to the District Officer, ICDS of all the districts
of the state of Bihar regarding appointment of candidates on the
posts of-
(a) District Program Coordinator
(b) District Program Assistant
A truecopy of the Letter no.
ICDS/70010/04-2018-2662
issued by Director of the
Integrated Child Development
Services, Bihar to the District
Officers, ICDS of all the
districts of the state of Bihar has
been annexed herewith as
ANNEXURE- I
7. That in the abovementioned letter it was further mentioned that
all the appointments were to be made in compliance with the
Terms of Reference (hereinafter TOR) issued by the Ministry of
Women and Child Development, Government of India. Further,
in this letter, the guidelines of Pradhan Mantri Matru Vandana
Yojana (herein referred as PMMVY) was also annexed.
A truecopy of the TOR and
Guidelines issued by the
Ministry of Women and
Child Development,
Government of India has
been annexed herewith as
ANNEXURE- II
8. That according to the point no.9 of abovementioned guidelines of
Pradhan Mantri Matru Vandana Yojana (PMMVY), it was
mentioned that,
“Such candidates who have any experience in
working in the ICDS Directorate or any other related
department or Administrative office or International
Development Agency will be given preference.”
9. That further, according to the abovementioned TOR, the
essential qualifications and experience for the post of District
Program Assistant enlists as follows:
● Qualification: Graduate
● Experience:
▪ At least 1 year experience of working with
Government/Non-Government Organizations.
 ▪ Proficiency in using MS-Office and Data-Entry.

10.That further, according to the TOR, the desirable qualification

and experience are as follows:
 Preferably in Social sciences/Social Work/ Rural
Management/ Statistics.
 3 years of experience of working in nutrition/ public
health/ Social Development Programs.
 Experience of working with ICDS.
11.That on 24.06.19, the Petitioner applied for the post of District
Program Assistant of Samastipur District through Online
Application Mode, bearing reference no. ________ in
accordance with vacancies notified through the Letter No.
ICDS/70010/04-2018-2662 dated 23.05.2019.
A truecopy of the Online
Application form of the
Petitioner has been annexed
herewith as ANNEXURE-
III.
12.That in December, 2020, the interview was scheduled for the
candidates who applied for the post of District Program assistant
is Samastipur District, as the basis for the scrutiny of candidates
was interview, and the interview was conducted by the panel
consisting:
 District Officer or any other officer appointed by District
Officer.
  Officer from SC/ST category, appointed by the District
Officer.
 Officer from minority category, appointed by District
Officer.
 Officer from Unicef/ Care India/ Others.
 District Program Officer.

13.That in February, 2021, the petitioner heard the news from other
candidates that post for District Program Assistant has been
filled in spite of the fact that no official notice has been issued,
which itself make the whole appointment suspicious and
arbitrary.
14.That on 19.02.2021, petitioner sought to gather information
through filing RTI regarding the appointment of District
Program Assistant, Samastipur.
A truecopy of questions of
RTI has been annexed here
with as ANNEXURE- IV.
15.That on 24.03.2021, the petitioner got replies of four out of six
RTI. In one of three replies of RTI, the petitioner was provided
with merit list of candidates applied for DPA, whereas in other
three replies, the concern authority decline to provide any
information by using section 8 of RTI Act as a tool to cover-up
their mess which again makes the whole appointment
questionable as the questions were related to competency of the
private respondents.
 A truecopy of reply of four
out of six RTI has been
annexed herewith as
ANNEXURE- V

16. That the list of question sought in RTI and replies against those
RTI has been inserted for the convenience of this Hon’ble Court.
Question Answer
Asked for the final merit list Provided the final merit list of
of candidates applied for the the candidate.
post of District Program
Assistant.
Asked for the certified copies Denied on the ground that the
of appointment letter issued to information is protected under
the selected candidates. the exception of personal
information provided under
8(1)(j) of RTI Act, 2005.
Asked for the certified Denied on the ground that the
photocopies of the letter information is protected under
issued for the mandatory the exception of personal
experience of selected information provided under
candidates. 8(1)(j) of RTI Act, 2005
 Asked for the certified Denied on the ground that the
photocopies of the letter information is protected under
issued for the mandatory the exception of personal
experience of selected information provided under
candidates. 8(1)(j) of RTI Act, 2005
Asked for the copies of online Denied on the ground that the
application of the selected information is protected under
candidates on the post of the exception of personal
District Program Assistant. information provided under
8(1)(j) of RTI Act, 2005
Asked for the primary merit Denied on the ground that the
list of selected candidates. information is protected under
the exception of personal
information provided under
8(1)(j) of RTI Act, 2005

17. That on 21.02.2022, petitioner sent a complaint letter to The

Director, Integrated Child Development Services, Bihar, raising
objection on appointment of District Program Assistant,
Samastipur and throw light on one of the mandatory eligibility
criteria which was as follows:
“...At least 1 year experience of working with Government/Non-
Government Organizations…”
A truecopy of the Complaint
Letter, dated 21.02.2022, has
been annexed here with as
ANNEXURE- VI
18.That in this letter the Petitioner has raised objection upon the
appointment of the following candidates:
a) Ms. Rashmi Rani, S/O- Suresh Prasad, R/O S Shweta
Sadan, Mohanpur Road, Near Power Grid Via Kashipur,
Samastipur, Bihar- 848101. None of her data which shows
her competency has been provided in the replies of RTI.
b) Mr. Saddam Hussain, S/O- MD Tauhid, R/O
Harishankarpur, Baghauni, Tajpur, Samastipur, Bihar-
848130.
19.That Lord Alfred Thompson Denning in the Chancery Division
of the English Court in the case of Enderby Town Football Club
Ltd. vs. Football Association Ltd. 1971 Ch 591, 606 held that ;
“with a good man in the saddle, the unruly horse can
be kept under control. It can jump over obstacles. It
can keep fences up by friction and come down on the
other side of the justice”.
20.That arguendo it may be argued that executives owe greater
responsibility to fulfill the objective of the government by
choosing, rational, impartial and vigilant persons to fulfill
objective of care of all and to extend it caring hands to the last
strata of the society.
21.That ___________________________________ RTI
SUKESH KUMAR VIDHYARTI
22.That to establish the irresponsible attitude of Respondent the
petitioner relies on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in
 the case Crawford Bayley vs. Union of India (2006) 6 SCC 25
where the court held that;
“the doctrine of rule against bias comes into play if
it is shown that the officer concerned has personal
connection or personal interest or has personally
acted in matter concerned and/or has already taken
decision one way or the other which he may be
interested in supporting.”
23.That the Constitutional Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India in Secretary, State of Karnataka & Others vs. Umadevi&
Others (2006) 4 SCC 1 held that;
“appointment made without following the
appropriate procedure under the rules/government
circulars are fragrant breach of Art. 14 & 16 of the
Constitution of India. It further held that the rules of
the recruitment cannot be relaxed”.
24.That the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in Jagdishbhai Narsinh
Bhai Madhvani vs. State of Gujarat Special Civil Application
No. 1712 of 2010 has held that;
“If less meritorious person is appointed, it would be
against the interest of the society itself and the basic
principle of fairness would be frustrated if a person
having bias is to participate in the selection process
or the person participating in the selection holds no
capability at all to judge the merit of any
candidate”.
25.That in the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the present writ
may be kindly allowed.
26.The Petitioner as well as the Respondents are amenable to the
Writ jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court.
27.That the petitioner has no other effective and efficacious remedy
than to move to your lordship by way of filing this Writ Petition
for the redressal of the grievances.
28.That the petitioner has not moved earlier before this Hon’ble
court in this matter.
It is, therefore, prayed that your lordships may
graciously be pleased to admit this writ issue rule
NISI calling upon the respondent to show cause
why the relief/relieves sought for above may not
be granted, and on return of the rule, and after
hearing the counsel for the parties be pleased the
rule absolute.
And / Or
Pass such other order or orders as your lordships
may deem fit and proper in the best interest of the
Petitioner.

And for this, the petitioner shall every pay.