[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Patna High Court
Poonam Kumari vs The State Of Bihar on 21 January, 2026
Author: Anshuman
Bench: Anshuman
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5349 of 2023
======================================================
Poonam Kumari Wife of Shrawan Mandal Resident of Dimahan Diyara, Ward
No. 13, Ismailpur, Police Station- Ismailpur, District- Bhagalpur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Social Welfare
Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Director, Social Welfare Department, ICDS, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Commissioner, Bhagalpur Division, Bhagalpur.
4. The District Magistrate, Bhagalpur.
5. The District Programme Officer, Bhagalpur.
6. The Child Development Project Officer, Ismailpur in the district of
Bhagalpur.
7. The Deepa Bharti Wife of Priyanshu Raj, Resident of Dimahan Diyara,
Ismailpur, Police Station- Ismailpur, District- Bhagalpur.
8. Pooja Kumari Wife of Manjiv Kumar Resident of Dimahan Diyara, Ward
No. 13, Ismailpur, Police Station- Ismailpur, District- Bhagalpur.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Rajesh Kumar
For the Respondent/s : Mr.S.K. Mandal (Sc3)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 21-01-2026
In today's cause list, the present matter has been listed
along with CWJC No. 12495/2013, CWJC No. 18365 of 2014,
CWJC No. 1004 of 2023, CWJC No. 2927 of 2023, CWJC No.
12384 of 2024, CWJC No. 6323 of 2023, CWJC No. 12517 of
2024 and CWJC No. 17312 of 2024. However, learned counsel
for the petitioner submits that the issues involved in the present
case are different from those involved in the batch cases and,
therefore, prays that the present matter be heard separately.
Patna High Court CWJC No.5349 of 2023 dt.21-01-2026
2/5
2. Learned counsel for the respondents also agrees
with the contention advanced by learned counsel for the
petitioner.
3. In view of the settled legal position by as laid
down by a Co-ordinate bench of this Court in Julee Kumari v.
The State of Bihar, reported in (2023) 2 PLJR 253, wherein it
has been held that writ petitions relating to Anganbari Sevika
are maintainable on merits, and in light of the joint submission
made by learned counsel appearing for the parties, the present
matter is taken up for separate hearing after de-tagging it from
the aforesaid batch cases.
4. Heard Learned Counsel for the petitioner and
Learned Counsel for the State.
5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the
present writ petition has been filed with the following reliefs:-
1. That, this is an application for
issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of
certiorari for quashing the order passed in Misc.
(Anganwari) Revision Case No. 13/21-22 dated
16.01.2023
by Commissioner, Bhagalpur Division,
Bhagalpur by which order passed by the District
Programme Officer, Bhagalpur dated 28.06.2021
has been dismissed with directive to do necessary
with regard to appointment of Anganwari Sewika
afresh as well also for quashing the office order
Patna High Court CWJC No.5349 of 2023 dt.21-01-2026
23.02.2023 under Memo No. 54 issued by CDPO,
Ismailpur, Bhagalpur by which till selection of
newly Anganwari Sewika charge of Anganwari
Centre No. 43 has been to one Nutan Kumari,
Anganwari Sewika and further for a direction after
setting aside the order the order stayed impugned
impugned with consequential benefits in terms
thereof for which petitioner is entitled for.
6. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the
order passed by the Commissioner is absolutely illegal and
wrong on the face of the record, due to the reason that about
petitioner, it has been said that she belongs to Dhanuk caste, but
the Commissioner has wrongly reached on this conclusion that
she is Kurmi caste. In this regard, the petitioner has annexed
supplementary affidavit and in the said affidavit, annexure-3 has
be attached supported by the pleading of the genealogical table
and according to the said table, the said khatiyan is recorded in
the name of Dhodhai Mandar and Hari Mandar, who are alleged
to be ancestor of the petitioner and their name has been recorded
as Dhanuk and this aspect has not been considered by the
Commissioner, which is wrong finding at all.
7. Counsel for the State on the other hand, submits
that the pleading made by the petitioner is absolutely incorrect
due to the reason that the documents of survey khatiyan which
Patna High Court CWJC No.5349 of 2023 dt.21-01-2026
was placed before the Commissioner is relating to survey
Khatiyan No.750, Khesara No.3283/596 in which the name of
grand father of the petitioner i.e., Jageshwar Mandal has been
recorded as Kurmi caste. It is due to this reason, the
Commissioner has reached on the conclusion that the petitioner
belongs to Kurmi caste.
8. Counsel further submits that there is no illegality in
the order passed by the Commissioner. He further submits that
the annexure annexed b the petitioner in the writ petitioner is
not relating to survey khatiyan No.750, Khesara No.3283/596
before this Court. He has placed separately complete document
which has not been placed before the Commissioner.
9. In this view of the matter, this Court finds that there
is subsistence in the argument of the State that the finding of the
Commissioner is based on the survey khatiyan produced in the
name of grand father Jageshwar Mandal in Survey Khatiyan
No.750, Khesara No.3283/596 whereas the said document has
not been produced before this Court instead of petitioner is
relying on another document. In this view of the matter, this
Court finds that there is no illegality in the order passed by
virtue of Commissioner. Hence, the present writ petition is
hereby dismissed.
Patna High Court CWJC No.5349 of 2023 dt.21-01-2026
10. However, liberty is hereby granted that if relating
to caste, the petitioner has any claim by virtue of another
document, then in that case, the petitioner may file title suit
placing all the documents, which has been placed before the
Commissioner and before this Court afresh for the first time
before the title suit, which decide their caste from the competent
Civil Court.
11. With the aforesaid directions and observations, the
present writ application stands dismissed.
(Dr. Anshuman, J)
Prakashmani/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 28.01.2026
Transmission Date NA
