Rajdeo Saday v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3123 of 2020 ====================================================== Rajdeo Saday, Son of Late Domi Saday, Resident of Village-Barmohttar, Police Station-Lalmaniya, District-Madhubani. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

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

2.

The District Magistrate, Madhubani.

3.

The District Programme Officer, Madhubani.

4.

The Sub Divisional Officer, Phulparas Madhubani. 5.

The Block Development Officer, Khutauna.

6.

Domani Kumari, Wife of Jitmohan Saday, Resident oif Village-Barhmottar, P.S.-Lalmaniya, District-Madhubani.

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Bimal Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Mr.S.K. Mandal (SC3) Mr. Bipin Kumar, AC to SC-3 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER 07-12-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel or the State.

2. The present petition has been filed for a direction to the respondent authorities to terminate respondent No.6, namely, Domani Kumari, from the post of Vikash Mitra of Jail Gram Panhyat, Khutauna Prakhand, District -Madhubani as her selection was made on the basis of forged certificate.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is also resident of the same village and belongs to the same category and due to illegal selection of respondent No.6, the

Patna High Court CWJC No.3123 of 2020(2) dt.08-12-2023 2/2 petitioner and other similarly situated candidates have to remain deprived from selection. He further submits that he has obtained document from different sources and placed the same before the District Magistrate, Sub-Divisional Officer and the Block Development Officer, but no action has been taken till date.

4. Learned counsel for the State submits that the appointment of private respondent has been made in the year 2010.

5. In the light of the submissions made by the parties, this Court directs the respondent No.2, namely, the District Magistrate, Madhubani to look into the matter and upon enquiry, if it has been found that the appointment of respondent No.6 is illegal then conduct an appropriate legal action against private respondent No.6, after awarding adequate opportunity of hearing to her.

6. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition stands disposed of.

(Dr. Anshuman, J) Ashwini/- U