Voter list entry is merely evidentiary and cannot override factual findings of non-residence for Anganwadi selection.

The petitioner and Respondent No. 9 both applied for the post of Anganwadi Sevika at Centre No. 176, Ward No. 09, Gram Panchayat Raj Uchkagaon, Gopalganj.

Although Respondent No. 9 secured higher marks (60.8%) than the petitioner (53.2%), the petitioner challenged her selection before the District Programme Officer (DPO).

The DPO found that while the respondent's husband was listed in the Ward No. 09 voter list, all other family members were in Ward No. 08, and the residence address provided belonged to another family.

The DPO set aside the respondent's selection, but this order was subsequently overturned by the Collector, Gopalganj, who held that the husband's inclusion in the voter list was sufficient proof of residence under the 2016 Guidelines.

The petitioner moved the High Court against the Collector’s decision.

1. Whether the mere inclusion of a husband's name in a specific ward's voter list is conclusive proof of residence for appointment as an Anganwadi Sevika if other evidence contradicts local residency.

2. Whether the Collector, Gopalganj, erred in law by failing to consider the detailed factual findings regarding the respondent’s actual place of residence.

Clause 5 of the Anganwadi Sevika/Sahayika Selection Guidelines, 2016

The inclusion of a husband or father-in-law's name in the voter list serves as evidentiary proof of residency, but it is not an absolute or irrebuttable presumption if contradicting evidence regarding the actual habitation exists.

The court reasoned that residency is a substantive requirement for the post. While Respondent No. 9 relied on her husband's name appearing in the voter list for Ward No. 09, the DPO had conducted a thorough factual inquiry revealing that her house number (No. 26) actually belonged to a different family (Ali Hussain) and that the rest of her family was registered in Ward No. 08.

The Court found that the Collector acted mechanically by treating the voter list entry as the sole criterion while ignoring the DPO's findings that the entry was likely erroneous or misplaced.

It was held that for the purpose of the 2016 Guidelines, the voter list entry is only "evidence of residence"; if substantial evidence proves the candidate resides elsewhere, the eligibility criterion is not met.

The Court set aside the Collector's order dated 08.07.2021 and allowed the writ application. The selection of the petitioner as Anganwadi Sevika is effectively maintained by the quashing of the impugned appellate order.