Ifat Fatima v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Letters Patent Appeal No.98 of 2020 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16915 of 2019 ====================================================== Ifat Fatima, Female, Aged about 26 years, Wife of Md. Saquib Anwar Resident of Village- Bangra, P.S.- Amour, District- Purnea. ... ... Appellant/s

Versus

1.

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

2.

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

The Director, Integrated Child Development Scheme, Government of Bihar, Patna.

4.

The Divisional Commissioner, Purnea, District- Purnea. 5.

The Deputy Director, Welfare Purnea, District- Purnea. 6.

The District Magistrate, Purnea, District- Purnea. 7.

The District Programme Officer, Integrated Child Development Scheme (ICDS), Purnea, District- Purnea.

8.

The Child Development Officer, Amour, District- Purnea. 9.

The Ladies Supervisor-Cum- Secretary, Selection Committee of Anganbari Sevika- Sahayika, Ward No- 5, Gram Panchayat Raj- Bangra Mahdipur, Block- Amour, District- Purnea.

10.

The Ward Member-Cum- Chairman, Selection Committee of Anganbari Sevika- Sahayika, Ward No- 5, Gram Panchayat Raj- Bangra Mahdipur, Block- Amour, District- Purnea.

11.

The Headmaster, Middle School Kharsauta, Block- Azamnagar, DistrictKatihar. 12.

Minouti Devi, Female, aged about 36 years, W/o Pradip Kumar Sah R/o Village- Bangra, P.S.- Amour, District- Purnea. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Appellant/s :

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

Mr. Gyan Prakash Ojha, GA 7 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA) 18-05-2022 The only grievance of the appellant is that appellant

Patna High Court L.P.A No.98 of 2020(3) dt.18-05-2022 2/2 having resigned as Anganbari Sahayika could not have been appointed as Anganbari Sevika on the same day. He has referred to Clause 14 of the guidelines of 2016. According to him, as per the said clause, this is not permissible.

We are not convinced with this argument. Learned Single Judge has rightly held that the said provision cannot be interpreted to mean that after having submitted resignation as Anganbari Sevika, appellant could not claim re-appointment in the same Centre.

The appeal is thus without any merit and is hereby dismissed.

(Rajan Gupta, J) (Rajiv Roy, J) P. Kumar U