Simplified Explanation of the Judgment
In a recent case heard by the Hon’ble Patna High Court, a litigant challenged the selection of another candidate as Anganwadi Sevika at Centre No. 366 in Alampur, Samastipur district. The petitioner claimed she had higher marks (76%) than the selected candidate (58.60%) and was originally at the top of the merit list. Despite this, the appointment went to another candidate.
The controversy arose around the eligibility criteria related to marital status and residence. The main allegation was that the petitioner got married after the cut-off date (16.02.2018), disqualifying her from selection. However, she produced a certificate stating her marriage occurred earlier, on 29.11.2017.
The District Programme Officer initially ruled in the petitioner’s favor, canceling the other candidate’s selection. However, on appeal, the Collector, Samastipur, reversed this decision, noting evidence of tampering in the marriage certificate and discrepancies in the marriage register.
The High Court examined both sides and upheld the Collector’s order. It emphasized that the petitioner failed to appear in proceedings despite several opportunities and that the questions involved were of a factual nature requiring detailed evidence. Such matters, the Court held, should be resolved by a Civil Court and not under writ jurisdiction.

Significance and Implications of the Judgment
This judgment serves as a reminder that documents submitted in government selection processes must be authentic and verifiable. It also clarifies the legal position regarding the limited jurisdiction of High Courts in factual disputes and reiterates the need to approach Civil Courts in such cases. For aspiring Anganwadi workers and similar candidates, this ruling underscores the importance of accurate documentation and timely legal action.

Legal Issues Decided and Decision of the Court
Whether the petitioner was wrongly denied selection as Anganwadi Sevika despite higher marks.
Court held that the matter involved factual disputes regarding the date of marriage.
Whether the High Court could adjudicate factual disputes under writ jurisdiction.
Court ruled it could not and suggested approaching a Civil Court.

Judgments Relied Upon or Cited by the Court
State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Ameerbi & Ors., (2007) 11 SCC 681
Parvati Devi @ Parvati Singh v. State of Bihar, 2024 (1) BLJ 178
Babita Kumari v. State of Bihar, 2016 SCC Online Pat 9434

Case Title– Jyoti Kumari vs. State of Bihar & Others
Case Number– Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 426 of 2022

Citation(s)– 2025(1) PLJR 13

Coram and Names of Judges
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Harish Kumar
Names of Advocates
For the Petitioner: Mr. Ajay Kumar
For the Respondents: Smt. Kumari Amrita (GP 3)

Link to the Judgment–

MTUjNDI2IzIwMjIjMSNO-h1iQl8SCXds=