Pritee Roy v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9234 of 2008 ====================================================== Pritee Roy , wife of Anil Kumar of village and P.O. Jamalabad, P.S. Ahiyapur, District Muzaffarpur .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Govt. of Bihar, patna

3. Director , Social Welfare Department, govt. of Bihar, Patna

4. District magistrate, Muzaffarpur

5. Child Development Project officer, Block Musahari, District Muzaffarpur

6. Bindeshwar Paswan, Mukhiya Gram Panchayat Jamalabad, P.S. Ahiyapur, Anchal Mushari, district Muzaffarpur

7. Shiv Shankar Prasad, Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Jamalabad, P.S. Ahiyapur, Anchal Musahari, District Muzaffarpur

8. Munni Devi, wife of Laxmi Chaurasiya of village and P.O. Janalabad, P.S. Ahiyapur, district Muzaffarpur .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Nirmal Kumar Sinha 3 Mr. Arun Kumar For the Respondent/s :

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 07-04-2015 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AC to AAG No. 8.

The petitioner invoking writ jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has prayed for directing the respondents to appoint her as Aanganbari Sevika for Aanganbari Centre No. 6 Gram Panchayat, Jamalabad, P.S. Ahiyapur, Block- Musahari, in the district of Muzaffarpur. It has been argued that though petitioner had got higher mark than the private respondent i.e. respondent no. 8, ignoring the case of

Patna High Court CWJC No.9234 of 2008 (3) dt.07-04-2015 2/2 petitioner, respondent no. 8 has been appointed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has also filed an application before the District Magistrate vide Annexure - 7 regarding the present complaint, however, no decision has been taken.

Instead of asking the State Counsel to file counter affidavit, the court proposes to dispose of the writ petition granting liberty to the petitioner to file specific complaint supported with affidavit in view of Clause - VIII of the Guidelines for appointment of Aanganbari Sevika to the District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur. If such complaint is filed within a period of eight weeks from today, the court expects that the respondent no. 4 / District Magistrate may get the matter enquired into and pass appropriate order in accordance with law preferably within a period of three months from the date of filing of such complaint. The writ petition stands disposed of.

(Rakesh Kumar, J) Praful/- U