Patna High Court
Bebi Kumari @ Bebi Devi vs The State Of Bihar And Ors on 16 June, 2025
Author: Anshuman
Bench: Anshuman
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14929 of 2013
======================================================
Bebi Kumari @ Bebi Devi W/O Sri Shrawan Kumar Yadav R/O Vill. -
Ramkol, P.S. Panjbara In The District Of Banka
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar
2. The Commissioner Cum Secretary Socialwelfare Department Govt. Of
Bihar, Patna
3. The Director Social Welfare Department Govt. Of Bihar, Patna
4. The District Magistrate, Banka
5. The District Welfare Officer, Banka
6. The Child Development Project, Officer, Dhoraia, District - Banka
7. The Mukhiya of Gram Panchayat Ramkol District Banka
8. Punam Kumar W/O Niranjan Yadav R/O Vill. - Ramkol, P.S. Panjbara In
The District Of Banka
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, SC-12
Mr. Anuj Kumar, AC to SC-12
For the Respondent No. 8 : Mr. Ajay Mukherji, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 16-06-2025
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
counsel for the State and learned counsel for the private
Respondent No. 8.
2. The present writ petition has been filed for the
following reliefs:-
(i) To quash the order dated
09/08/12
(Annexure- 8) issued under the
Patna High Court CWJC No.14929 of 2013 dt.16-06-2025
2/14
signature of District Magistrate, Banka
whereby and where under he has approved
the order dated 25.03.2010 (annexure- 6)
and holds that petitioner is not entitled to
appoint as Anganbari Sevika.
(ii) For commanding the
respondent to select the petitioner in place of
R. No. 8 as an Anganbari Sevika at Ramkol
Centre in the District of Banka who is the
most suitable/eligible candidate for the post.
(iii) And any other relief/reliefs
for which the petitioner may found entitled in
the eye of law.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner has passed the Madhyama Examination from the
Bihar Sanskrit Education Board, Patna, securing 438 marks
(First Division). It is further submitted that the petitioner is an
educated woman belonging to the Backward Class and is fully
competent for appointment to the post of Anganbari Sevika. In
response to an advertisement inviting applications for the said
post, the petitioner, being a qualified candidate, participated in
the selection process. A merit list was prepared in accordance
with the then prevailing rules, and an Aam Sabha was duly
constituted under the chairmanship of the Mukhiya of the
respective Gram Panchayat. The petitioner was found to be the
most suitable candidate for the post and was, therefore, selected
Patna High Court CWJC No.14929 of 2013 dt.16-06-2025
3/14
as Anganbari Sevika for the Ramkol Anganbari Centre.
4. Counsel further submits that there were no
allegations regarding the functioning of the petitioner, she was
punctual, capable, and sincere in the discharge of her duties, and
on no point of time was any complaint made against her. It is
also submitted that the petitioner participated in the six-day
induction training. However, the private respondent filed a writ
petition being CWJC No. 15715 of 2009, challenging the
petitioner’s selection on the basis of an allegedly false
document. It was claimed therein that the date of birth
mentioned in the certificate issued by the Bihar Sanskrit
Education Board, Patna, did not tally with the date of birth as
per the records of the Bihar School Examination Board. It has
been intimated that the petitioner had failed the examination
conducted by the Bihar School Examination Board and
subsequently appeared in the examination held by the Bihar
Sanskrit Education Board, Patna, and after hearing the parties,
the said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated
16.12.2009 passed in CWJC No. 15715 of 2009, with a direction
to the concerned authority to dispose of the representation
within three months.
5. Counsel further submits that the private
Patna High Court CWJC No.14929 of 2013 dt.16-06-2025
4/14
respondent filed a representation before the District Programme
Officer, Banka, pursuant to the order dated 16.12.2009 passed in
CWJC No. 15715 of 2009. In response, the District Programme
Officer, Banka, vide Memo No. 215 dated 25.03.2010, cancelled
the petitioner’s appointment. Counsel submits that the said
cancellation order is beyond the jurisdiction of the District
Programme Officer and, therefore, was challenged by the
petitioner before this Hon’ble Court in CWJC No. 6358 of 2010.
Vide order dated 13.09.2011, this Hon’ble Court set aside the
order contained in Memo No. 215 dated 25.03.2010 and directed
the District Magistrate, Banka, to hear the parties and pass a
fresh order in accordance with law.
6. It is further submitted that, the District
Magistrate, Banka, in gross violation, has approved the order
passed by the District Programme Officer, contained in Memo
no. 215 dated 25.03.2010 which was held by this Hon’ble Court,
vide order dated 13.09.2011 in CWJC No. 6358 of 2010, as
beyond jurisdiction. The said action has been challenged before
this Hon’ble Court, as evident from Annexure 7 to the writ
petition. Counsel further submits that the District Magistrate has
concluded that the petitioner’s certificates are fake and
fabricated. However, it is specifically contended that this finding
Patna High Court CWJC No.14929 of 2013 dt.16-06-2025
5/14
of the District Magistrate was arrived at without conducting any
enquiry or verification of documents. Therefore, the said
conclusion may not be accepted.
7. Counsel further submits that the petitioner
possesses two educational certificates, one issued by the Bihar
School Examination Board and the other by the Bihar Sanskrit
Education Board. It is submitted that, at least, one of these
certificates ought to be treated as genuine. Counsel also submits
that the petitioner has not taken any undue benefit from either
certificate. He further points out that the petitioner’s
appointment was made prior to 2010, and at the relevant time,
the minimum eligibility for the post of Anganbari Sevika was
completion of 7th standard. Therefore, neither the certificate
from the Bihar School Examination Board nor the one from the
Bihar Sanskrit Education Board was important for the petitioner.
Counsel further submits that at least one of the certificates
should have been acknowledged as genuine, on which no
finding has come from the District Magistrate, Banka
(Collector). As such, this order is absolutely bad in law.
8. Counsel further submits that a direction be issued
to the Collector, Banka, to pass a fresh reasoned order, after
proper verification, determining the genuineness of at least one
Patna High Court CWJC No.14929 of 2013 dt.16-06-2025
6/14
of the certificates and the petitioner’s date of birth, so that the
petitioner may claim against the respondent authorities in
accordance with law and in light of the then prevailing
Margdarshika for the appointment of Anganbari Sevika and
Sahayika.
9. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand,
opposes the writ petition and submits that this Hon’ble Court,
vide order dated 13.09.2011 passed in CWJC No. 6358 of 2010,
was pleased to set aside the order passed by the District
Programme Officer, Banka, treating it as without jurisdiction,
without entering into the merits of the case, as according to the
then rule, the order of cancellation for the appointment should
be passed by the Collector, not the District Programme Officer.
Consequently, the matter was remitted back to the Collector,
Banka, for fresh consideration.
10. Counsel further submits that the Collector,
Banka, in the order impugned in the present writ petition
(Annexure 8), has categorically discussed the entire factual
matrix and submits that the petitioner had recorded her date of
birth as 08.04.1986 in the records of the Bihar School
Examination Board, where she had failed. However, in the
certificate issued by the Bihar Sanskrit Education Board, her
Patna High Court CWJC No.14929 of 2013 dt.16-06-2025
7/14
date of birth is mentioned as 12.01.1987. It is submitted that
since the petitioner is one and the same individual, her date of
birth must be same across all documents, irrespective of the
examining board. Counsel further submits that the act of
mentioning two different dates of birth in official academic
records, both attributed to the same person, clearly indicates that
the forgery has been made. Therefore, the conclusion drawn by
the District Magistrate, Banka, is absolutely in accordance with
law.
11. Counsel further submits that the same reasoning
was assigned by the District Programme Officer in his earlier
order, and it is solely on that factual basis that the District
Magistrate, Banka, has also approved the order passed by the
District Programme Officer, as contained in Memo No. 215
dated 25.03.2010. Counsel further submits that the petitioner
wants to take the plea that, as per the applicable rules at the
relevant time, the minimum eligibility for appointment as
Anganbari Sevika was only a 7th pass qualification, and not
matriculation or its equivalent, this specific plea was never
raised by the petitioner at any stage.
12. Counsel further submits that three rounds of
litigation have come before this Hon’ble Court but, this factual
Patna High Court CWJC No.14929 of 2013 dt.16-06-2025
8/14
matrix regarding minimum educational eligibility was not taken
into consideration. Counsel concludes his argument by stating
that Respondent No. 8, after the removal of the petitioner, has
been continuously serving the department for over ten years, and
this aspect of continuity in service may also be taken into
consideration by this Hon’ble Court while deciding the present
writ petition.
13. Learned counsel for the private respondent No.
8 submits that, so far as merit is concerned, it has already been
argued. Counsel further submits that she has been serving on the
post of Anganbari Sevika for the last 10-12 years, and at no
earlier stage was the plea ever taken by the petitioner that the
eligibility was 7th pass at the relevant period of time. Counsel
further submits that even if, for the sake of argument, the writ
petition is allowed, the result would only be final selection, in
any case, the petitioner could not be appointed, whereas the
private respondent was appointed following due process of law.
Counsel concludes his argument by submitting that the
petitioner is a litigant person, and even after a lapse of about 12
years, she is still continuing with the litigation.
14. After hearing the parties, it transpires to this
Court that the petitioner was appointed in the year 2007, vide
Patna High Court CWJC No.14929 of 2013 dt.16-06-2025
9/14
appointment letter dated 25.06.2007. She was removed from
service in the year 2010, vide order contained in Memo No. 215
dated 25.03.2010, on the basis of which private respondent No.
8 was appointed and started working. Thereafter, three rounds of
litigation have come before this Hon’ble Court. Firstly, in CWJC
No. 15715 of 2009, secondly, in CWJC No. 6358 of 2010, and
thirdly, the present writ petition being CWJC No. 14929 of
2013, which is now being finally adjudicated in the year 2025.
15. This Court, after considering the above
discussion, finds that the petitioner has mentioned two different
dates of birth, one in the records of the Bihar School
Examination Board and another in the Bihar Sanskrit Education
Board. Therefore, the finding of the District Magistrate that
forgery was committed is correct. However, this Court also
agrees with the argument made by learned counsel for the
petitioner that at least one of the certificates should be treated as
genuine. Accordingly, this Court holds that the first date of birth
mentioned in the Bihar School Examination Board certificate,
i.e., 08.04.1986, shall be treated as the correct date of birth, as in
the year 1986, there was no hurdle, therefore, earlier date of
birth be treated as correct, but the another point is that the
petitioner ought to be granted liberty to raise the issue and
Patna High Court CWJC No.14929 of 2013 dt.16-06-2025
10/14
challenge the appointment of respondent No. 8 on the ground
that, at the relevant time, the minimum educational qualification
required for appointment to the post of Anganbari Sevika was
7th pass and not matriculation. But this point was never been
raised by the petitioner at any early stage.
16. This Court hereby observes that litigation must
come to an end, and it is for this reason that Section 11 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, has been enacted, which is also
applicable in writ jurisdiction. This view regarding the
applicability of the doctrine of res judicata in writ petitions has
been followed in Association for Democratic Reforms v.
Election Commission of India and Anr., reported in (2025) 2
SCC 732, where it has been categorically held in paragraph Nos.
107 to 111, which state as follows:-
“107. It is pertinent to reiterate that
the doctrine of res judicata is applicable to writ
petitions under Article 32 and Article 226 as well.
The inclusion of the term “public right” in
Explanation VI of Section 11 of the Civil Procedure
Code, 1908 aims to avoid redundant legal disputes
concerning public rights. Given this clarification,
there is no room for debate regarding the
application of Section 11 to matters of public
interest litigation presented through writ petitions.
108. In Daryao v. State of U.P.
Patna High Court CWJC No.14929 of 2013 dt.16-06-2025
11/14[Daryao v. State of U.P., 1961 SCC OnLine SC 21 :
(1962) 1 SCR 574] , a Constitution Bench of this
Court emphasised that the rule of res judicata is
founded on significant public policy considerations
rather than being a mere technicality. It was
clarified that petitioners seeking to challenge a
decision must present new grounds distinct from
those previously raised in order to escape the bar
of res judicata. The Bench articulated this as
follows:
“31. … We are satisfied that a
change in the form of attack against the
impugned statute would make no difference
to the true legal position that the writ
petition in the High Court and the present
writ petition are directed against the same
statute and the grounds raised by the
petitioner in that behalf are substantially the
same.”
109. Another Constitution Bench of
this Court in Direct Recruit Class II Engg. Officers’
Assn. v. State of Maharashtra [Direct Recruit Class
II Engg. Officers’ Assn. v. State of Maharashtra,
(1990) 2 SCC 715 : 1990 SCC (L&S) 339]
followed the aforesaid dictum to hold that the
principles of res judicata are not foreign to writ
petitions. A reference may be made to the following
paragraph :
“35. … It is well established
that the principles of res judicata are
Patna High Court CWJC No.14929 of 2013 dt.16-06-2025
12/14applicable to writ petitions. The relief prayed
for on behalf of the petitioner in the present
case is the same as he would have, in the
event of his success, obtained in the earlier
writ petition before the High Court. The
petitioner in reply contended that since the
special leave petition before this Court was
dismissed in limine without giving any
reason, the order cannot be relied upon for a
plea of res judicata. The answer is that it is
not the order of this Court dismissing the
special leave petition which is being relied
upon; the plea of res judicata has been
pressed on the basis of the High Court’s
judgment which became final after the
dismissal of the special leave petition. In
similar situation a Constitution Bench of this
Court in Daryao v. State of U.P. [Daryao v.
State of U.P., 1961 SCC OnLine SC 21 :
(1962) 1 SCR 574] held that where the High
Court dismisses a writ petition under Article
226 of the Constitution after hearing the
matter on the merits, a subsequent petition in
the Supreme Court under Article 32 on the
same facts and for the same reliefs filed by
the same parties will be barred by the
general principle of res judicata. The
binding character of judgments of courts of
competent jurisdiction is in essence a part of
the rule of law on which the administration
Patna High Court CWJC No.14929 of 2013 dt.16-06-2025
13/14of justice, so much emphasised by the
Constitution, is founded and a judgment of
the High Court under Article 226 passed
after a hearing on the merits must bind the
parties till set aside in appeal as provided by
the Constitution and cannot be permitted to
be circumvented by a petition under Article
32. An attempted change in the form of the
petition or the grounds cannot be allowed to
defeat the plea ….”
110. No doubt, res judicata bars
parties from re-litigating issues that have been
conclusively settled. It is true that this principle is
not rigid in cases of substantial public interest and
constitutional courts are empowered to adopt a
flexible approach in such cases, acknowledging
their far-reaching public interest ramifications.
111. However, this standard is
applicable only when substantial evidence is
presented to validate the irreversible harm or
detriment to the public good resulting from the
action impugned. The Court must come to the
conclusion that the petition is not just an old wine
in a new bottle, but rather raises substantial
grounds not previously addressed in litigation.
Only under these circumstances may it consider
such a petition; otherwise, it is within its authority
to dismiss it at the threshold.”
Patna High Court CWJC No.14929 of 2013 dt.16-06-2025
14/14
17. From the aforesaid, it clearly indicates that
points about entitlement of appointment of petitioner on the
basis of certificate of 7th class, which ought to be raised, not
raised, cannot be raised. Therefore, this Court is of the firm view
that the points which were not raised by the petitioner during the
course of the long litigation cannot be allowed to be raised at
this stage.
18. In view of the present facts and circumstances,
this Court is not inclined to allow the writ petition. Accordingly,
the present writ petition stands dismissed.
(Dr. Anshuman, J.)
Aman Kumar/-
AFR/NAFR AFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 21.06.2025 Transmission Date NA