Anuradha Kumari v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1913 of 2024 ====================================================== Anuradha Kumari Wife of Ranjit Kumar, Resident of village Naya Gaon, Ward No.- 13, P.S.- Piprahi, District- Sheohar. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

2.

The Director, Integrated Child Development Service (I.C.D.S.), Social Welfare Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

3.

The District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Sheohar. 4.

The District Programme Officer, Sheohar.

5.

The Child Development Project Officer, Piprahi, P.S. Piprahi, District Sheohar.

6.

The Lady Supervisor, Piprahi, P.S. Piprahi, District Sheohar. 7.

Pratima Devi, Wife of Santosh Kumar, Resident of village Naya Gaon, Ward No.- 13, P.S.- Piprahi, District Sheohar.

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Hans Lal Kumar, Adv.

For the Respondent/s :

Mr.Standing Counsel-26 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH ORAL ORDER 29-02-2024

1. The present writ petition has been filed seeking the following relief(s):- "1.i) For issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the order dated 26.09.2023 passed in Case No. 311/2023 by the learned District Magistrate, Sheohar, whereby and whereunder the valid selection of the petitioner has been undone and directed the respondent District Programme Officer to appoint the respondent no. 7 contrary to the earlier order passed in Case No. 210/2018 dated 01.09.2020.

Patna High Court CWJC No.1913 of 2024(2) dt.29-02-2024 2/2 ii) For holding and declaring that the respondent District Magistrate has misinterpreted the order dated 09.02.2023 of this Hon'ble Court passed in C.W.J.C. No. 62/2021, wherein this Hon'ble Court has no way directed him to cancel the appointment/selection of the petitioner and that too without considering the fact that the respondent no. 7 was selected contrary to the Guidelines, 2016."

2. At the outset, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks not to press the present writ petition, however, seeks liberty on behalf of the petitioner to avail such other alternative remedies as are otherwise available under the law, including that of filing a suit before the learned Civil Court having competent jurisdiction for redressal of her aforesaid grievances. Liberty so sought is granted.

3. The writ petition stands dismissed as not pressed. (Mohit Kumar Shah, J) sonal/- U