Procedural non-appearance before the primary authority does not invalidate an appeal if the statutory time limit for decision-making has elapsed.

The petitioner was appointed as an Anganbari Sevika for Ward No. 13, Parsa East Panchayat, on 02.08.2019 under a seat reserved for the Scheduled Caste (SC) category

Despite being from an Extremely Backward Class (EBC), the petitioner was selected because no eligible SC candidates were available

Respondent No. 9 challenged the selection. The District Programme Officer (DPO) initially upheld the appointment, but on revision, the Commissioner of Saran set aside the selection and ordered a fresh advertisement

The Petitioner challenged the Commissioner's order, arguing that the DPO should not have entertained the appeal directly without a prior decision by the C.D.P.O. and that the Commissioner exceeded his jurisdiction by questioning the validity of the original advertisement

1. Whether the selection process and advertisement for Ward No. 13 were legally valid given the actual demographic majority of the ward

2. Whether the DPO improperly usurped the jurisdiction of the Original Authority (C.D.P.O.) in entertaining the appeal directly

Guidelines for appointment of Anganbari Sevika Sahayika, 2019, which dictate that selection must be based on the category that constitutes the majority in a specific ward according to the mapping register

The procedural hierarchy under the guidelines requires an initial filing before the C.D.P.O. before moving to the DPO (Appellate Authority) and subsequently to the Commissioner (Revisional Authority)

The Court found that while the petitioner argued the ward was reserved for SC, the Commissioner’s review of the mapping register and a tabular demographic chart proved that the Backward Category was actually the majority class in Ward No. 13

The advertisement itself was flawed as it should have targeted the majority category rather than SC/ST

Regarding the procedural objection, the Court noted that while a legal question regarding jurisdiction can be raised at any stage, the record (specifically Para 6 of the memo of appeal) showed the private respondent had indeed approached the C.D.P.O. first, who failed to act for 30 days, thereby justifying the direct appeal to the DPO

The Revisional Authority acted within its jurisdiction to void an appointment that was ab initio illegal due to a faulty advertisement

The procedural irregularity alleged by the petitioner was factually incorrect

The writ petition was dismissed, upholding the Commissioner's order to cancel the petitioner's selection and issue a fresh advertisement in accordance with the correct demographic majority