Rita Kumari, v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2612 of 2020 ====================================================== Rita Kumari, Wife of Naresh Yadav, Resident of Village and Post- Neuri, P.S.- Belaganj, District- Gaya.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through the Director, I.C.D.S., Bihar, Patna. 2.

The Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Bihar, Patna. 3.

The Commissioner, Gaya Division, Gaya.

4.

The District Magistrate, Gaya.

5.

The District Programme Officer, Gaya.

6.

The Child Development Project Officer, Belaganj, Gaya. 7.

The Lady Supervisor, Child Development Project Office, Belaganj, Gaya. 8.

The Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Lodipur, Block Belaganj, District- Gaya. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner :

Mr. Amrendra Kumar Singh, Advocate For the State :

Mr. Alok Chandra, AC to GA-7 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER 01-12-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

2. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the advertisement as contained in letter No. 534 dated 13.12.2019 issued under the signature of the Child Development Project Officer, Belaganj, Gaya on 12.12.2019 only with respect to selection for the post of Sevika at Anganwari Centre Neuri, Code No.207, Ward No.10 under Lodipur Gram Panchayat in Block Belaganj, District Gaya and also for quashing the merit list dated 21.04.2018 with respect to the selection for the post of

Patna High Court CWJC No.2612 of 2020(3) dt.01-12-2023 2/2 Sevika in the aforesaid Anganwari Centre Neuri, as the petitioner applied for the post of Sevika but her name was shown at Serial No.4 in the merit list of Sahaika in the aforesaid Anganwari Centre, with other prayers.

3. The basic grievance of the petitioner is that the application form of the petitioner has alleged to be changed/certain cutting has been alleged to be made.

4. Counsel for the State submits that this is not the appropriate forum under law, in which the petitioner can raise such grievance. The petitioner ought to raise her grievance before the authority concerned, i.e., C.D.P.O.

5. In this background and in the light of the submissions, it transpires to this Court that this writ petition is not maintainable and, therefore, is dismissed. (Dr. Anshuman, J) Narendra/- U