Patna High Court endorses order by Justice Madhuresh Prasad

In Rina Kumari vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. (2025), the division bench of Patna High Court comprising of Acting Chief Justice Ashutosh Kumar and Justice Partha Sarthy heard the appellant who hac preferred two on-line applications for consideration of her appointment as Anganbari Sevika and dismissed the appeal. In the applications, there were different entries. The appellant had approached the Divisional Commissioner for permitting her to press the second application with the correct entries, which was allowed. Besides the State of Bihar, the six respondents were:Director, ICDS, Divisional Commissioner, Gaya, District Magistrate, Aurangabad, District Progamme Officer, Aurangabad, Child Development Project Officer, Obra, Aurangabad, and Sonamati Kumari. 

The division bench of the High Court noted that the exercise of discretion by the Divisional Commissioner was not found to be tenable by Justice Madhuresh Prasad, the Single Judge of the High Court in Sonamati Kumari vs. The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Social Welfare Department (2023) by judgment dated September 26, 2023. The issue was tested in the context of the format of the on-line application, which specified that any entry made in the first instance by an applicant on-line shall be the facts undertaken by the maker thereof and all liabilities and responsibilities would be fastened on the maker of such application. With such clarity in the format of the on-line application, the first application-form only was to be scrutinized. The judgment of the Single Judge indicates that there were changes not only in the name of the husband of the appellant but also in her date of birth as also in the class/category in which she had applied. 

In its judgment dated February, 27, 2028, the division bench observed: "We are in complete agreement with the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge, which requires no interference."

In Sonamati Kumari case before Justice Madhuresh Prasad, the other six respondents were: Director, ICDS, Bihar, Divisional Commissioner, Gaya, District Magistrate, Aurangabad, District Progamme Officer, Aurangabad, Child Development Project Officer, Obra, Aurangabad and Rina Kumai. 

Justice Prasad's order reads:"The tone and tenor of the note, at the bottom of the form, is clear. The applicant is bound by the information furnished in the on-line application form and it is clearly stipulated that for any discrepancy, it shall be the applicant furnishing the on-line application form who shall be liable. Contrary to such stipulation, the liability even if it is accepted to be a human error committed by Respondent No. 7, is sought to be fastened on the petitioner by interfering with her selection. The order of the Divisional Commissioner to this effect, in the opinion of this Court, is unsustainable. The order dated 29.11.2022 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Magadh Division is hereby set aside. The consequences shall follow." The Respondent No. 7 is Rina Kumari.