Kumari Nilam Sinha v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Letters Patent Appeal No.2107 of 2015 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13720 of 2015 ====================================================== Kumari Nilam Sinha wife of Arbind Kumar Singh, Resident of Village & P.O. & Block- Chehra Kalan, P.S.- Chehra Kalan, District- Vaishali. ... ... Appellant/s

Versus

1.

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

2.

The Director, I.C.D.S., Social Welfare Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

3.

Deputy Director, Welfare, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur. 4.

The District Magistrate, Vaishali at Hajipur. 5.

District Programme Officer, (District Programmer Section), Vaishali Collectoriate, Vaishali at Hajipur.

6.

Child Development Project Officer, Chehra Kalan, District- Vaishali. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Appellant/s :

Mr. Pramod Rajpati, Advocate Smt. Durga Kumari, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Sunil Kumar, AC to GP-11 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI) 13-09-2017 Consistent finding of all the forums including the learned single Judge is that at the time of the inspection held of the center, the center was not found to be running and hardly any beneficiaries were found at the center when the inspection was made. All kinds of submissions have been made before the learned single Judge including the cases of discrimination or allegation of demand of gratification etc. All that had been considered and the writ was dismissed.

Patna High Court LPA No.2107 of 2015(2) dt.13-09-2017 2/2 In the opinion of this Court since the appellant was not a holder of a permanent post under the State, but is on contractual engagement, enough judicial scrutiny has been done by forums provided to her. Since she has failed to controvert the findings at every stage, she cannot be provided another opportunity to argue her case de novo in this appeal. Since the Bench does not find any illegality in the order of the learned single Judge, the appeal is dismissed.

(Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J) ( Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) Pawan/- U