Rupanjali Kumari v. The State Of Bihar And ORS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1011 of 2017 ===========================================================
1. Rupanjali Kumari W/o Rakesh Kumar resident of Village: - Pawai, P.S. - Dev, Dist - Aurangabad.
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Commissioner, Magadh Division, Gaya.
4. The District Magistrate, Aurangabad.
5. The Deputy Director, Social Welfare, Magadh Division, Gaya.
6. The District Public Grievance Redressal Officer, Aurangabad.
7. The District Programme Officer, Aurangabad.
8. The Child Development Programme Officer, Dev, Aurangabad. .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Vinod Kumar, Adv. For the Respondent/s: Mr. Mithilesh Kumar Upadhyay, A.C. to G.P.3 =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 01-09-2017 Heard Mr. Vinod Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Mithilesh Kumar Upadhyay, A.C. to G.P.3 for the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner, Magadh Division, Gaya whereby her appeal has been rejected. A plain reading of the order in appeal would show that it is following the removal of the original appointee one Nagwanti Devi that an appointment process was initiated in which the petitioner participated. Before the selection process could be completed that under the orders of the Deputy Director, Magadh Division, Gaya in Case No. 9 of 2013, the said Nagwanti Devi was reinstated on her
Patna High Court CWJC No.1011 of 2017 dt.01-09-2017 2/2 post rendering the selection process so initiated, redundant. On the other hand, soon after reinstatement, the said Nagwanti Devi expired. A fresh selection process has been initiated in terms of the guidelines of 2016 for filling the post and the writ petitioner is also an applicant. However, by this writ petition she is trying to derive the benefit of the previous selection process which lost its meaning after the reinstatement of Nagwanti Devi whose removal order was set aside. The writ petition is thoroughly misconceived and is accordingly dismissed.
(Jyoti Saran, J) Bibhash/- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 07.09.2017 Transmission Date NA