Facts
The petitioner was selected as an Anganwadi Sevika on October 13, 2017, and joined service on October 15, 2017
Source reference: p. 2Following a complaint, the District Programme Officer (DPO), in Anganwadi Appeal Case No. 56/2017, cancelled her selection on August 28, 2019, directing the appointment of respondent no. 8 in her place
Source reference: p. 3The petitioner’s subsequent appeal (No. 10/2019-20) before the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Patna, was rejected on June 14, 2023
Source reference: p. 3The authorities found that the petitioner had obtained a matriculation certificate in 1994 from the Bihar School Examination Board and a second matriculation certificate in 2014 from the Bihar Sanskrit Education Board to improve her marks for selection
Source reference: p. 5Discrepancies were also noted in the date of birth recorded across her Aadhaar and Voter ID cards
Source reference: p. 6Issues
Whether the selection of a candidate based on a second matriculation certificate obtained for the purpose of improving marks/results is legally valid when a prior certificate for the same degree exists.
Source reference: p. 5/6Whether the orders passed by the DPO and the Collector-cum-District Magistrate cancelling the petitioner’s appointment suffer from any legal infirmity.
Source reference: p. 6Law Applied
The Court applied the legal principle established in Amarjeet Singh Rathaur v. The State of Bihar & Ors. (CWJC No. 13190 of 2009), which stipulates that when an individual possesses two certificates for the same degree, only the first certificate shall be recognized for official purposes, and the second certificate cannot be used to secure employment or any other service benefits
Source reference: p. 5, 6Reasoning
The Court observed that the petitioner’s claim of following the 2016 appointment guidelines was undermined by the suppression of her 1994 matriculation qualification
Source reference: p. 5The Court found that the petitioner appeared for the 2014 examination solely to improve her marks to gain an unfair advantage in the selection process for Anganwadi Sevika
Source reference: p. 5Relying on the precedent in Amarjeet Singh Rathaur, the Court reasoned that the second certificate was legally void for the purpose of appointment
Source reference: p. 6Furthermore, the Court noted that the Collector had recorded specific findings regarding discrepancies in the petitioner's date of birth across various identification documents, which further invalidated her candidacy
Source reference: p. 6Holding
The Court answered the issues in the negative, holding that the writ petition lacked merit due to the petitioner’s reliance on an impermissible second certificate and the suppression of facts
The High Court upheld the orders of the DPO and the District Magistrate, Patna, which cancelled the petitioner's selection and appointed respondent no. 8
Source reference: p. 6The writ petition was dismissed
Source reference: p. 6Original Court PDF
Kumari Jayanti Sinha v. The State of Bihar & Ors. [CWJC No. 9583 of 2024]
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in