Sarita Kumari v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3318 of 2019 ====================================================== Sarita Kumari, Age-about-22 years (F), Wife of Rajesh Kumar, Resident of Village and Post- Bharko, P.S.- Amarpur, District- Banka. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. The Secretary, Department of Social Welfare, Government of Bihar, Patna.

3. The Director, I.C.D.S., Government of Bihar, Patna.

4. The Deputy Director, Social Welfare, Banka.

5. The District Magistrate, Banka.

6. The District Programme Officer, Banka.

7. The Child Development Project officer, Amarpur, Banka.

8. The Rubi Kumari, Wife of Rajesh Kumar, Presently Resident of Village and P.O.- Bharko, P.S. Amarpur, District- Banka.

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Brisketu Sharan Pandey For the Respondent/s :

Mr.Prashant Pratap (Gp2) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 22-02-2019 Being aggrieved by the appointment of private respondent No. 8 on the post of Anganbari Sevika in the Anganbari Centre of Bharko, Ward No. 10, Amarpur, in the District of Banka, the petitioner, who was also one of the applicants, has made a complaint before the District Programme Officer, Banka and other functionaries, but the complaints referred to above have not yet yielded any result.

2. Under the aforesaid circumstances, the

Patna High Court CWJC No.3318 of 2019 dt.22-02-2019 2/2 petitioner is directed to make a fresh representation/complaint before the District Programme Officer, Banka (respondent No. 6), detailing her grievances, within a period of three weeks from today, who, on receipt of the same, shall, after verifying the facts and hearing the parties, i.e., the petitioner, private respondent No. 8 and other stake-holders, dispose off the aforesaid representation/complaint within a further period of four weeks thereafter.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that the appointment of private respondent No. 8 is absolutely unjustified as she does not hail from the dominant community of the area, which is one of the condition precedents for engagement of Anganbari Sevika.

4. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition stands disposed off.

(Ashutosh Kumar, J) Praveen-II/- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE N/A Uploading Date 25.02.2019 Transmission Date N/A