Mamta Kumari Karn v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.768 of 2017 ======================================================

1. Mamta Kumari Karn, Wife of Raushan Kumar Karn, resident of VillageBankatta, Police Station- Benipatti, District- Madhubani. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Social Welfare, Govt. of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna.

3. The District Magistrate, Madhubani.

4. The District Programme officer (Establishment) Madhubani.

5. The District Programme Officer (I.C.D.S.), Madhubani.

6. The Child Development Project Officer, Benipatti, Madhubani.

7. Anita Devi, Wife of Gopal Sah, Resident of Village- Bankatta, Police Station- Benipatti, District- Madhubani.

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shailendra Kumar Jha, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Md.Raisul Haque-SC10 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL ORDER 28-08-2017 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

It is admitted by Mr. Shailendra Kumar Jha, learned counsel for the petitioner that while this writ petition is pending consideration that the selection process has been completed and one Anita Devi, respondent No.7 has been appointed as Anganbari Sevika, Anganbari Kendra No.143 village Bankatta in the district of Madhubani.

Mr. Jha learned counsel for the petitioner also fairly admits that alternative remedy is available to the petitioner under the guidelines so issued by the State Government and whereunder the

Patna High Court CWJC No.768 of 2017 (3) dt.28-08-2017 2/2 application would lie before the District Programme Officer, respondent No.4.

In the circumstances this writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to exhaust the alternative remedy so available to him under the guidelines to question the appointment of the respondent No.7 and it goes without saying that any such application being filed by the petitioner questioning the appointment of the respondent No.7 should be considered and disposed of by the respondent No.4 or the authority concerned in accordance with law and after giving opportunity of hearing to the contesting parties i.e petitioner as well as the respondent No.6 expeditiously and preferably within 3 months from the filing of the application.

(Jyoti Saran, J) Bibhash/- U