Pratima Devi @ Pratima Kumari v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Letters Patent Appeal No.247 of 2016 Arising out of Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 12881 of 2015 =========================================================== Pratima Devi @ Pratima Kumari, wife of Sri Manohar Kumar, resident of VillageRamjichak, P.S. Digha ,District Patna. .... .... Appellant/s

Versus

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

2. The Divisional Commissioner, Division Patna.

3. The Director, Social Welfare Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

4. The Deputy Director, Social Welfare Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

5. The District Magistrate, Patna

6. The District Programme Officer, Patna.

7. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Danapur, District Patna.

8. The Child Development Project Officer, Danapur ,District Patna

9. The Block Welfare Officer, Danapur, District Patna. .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Appellant/s : Mr. Alok, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. J.S. Barnwal, G.A.-5 =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) Date: 28-03-2017 Seeking exception to an order passed by the learned Writ Court on 17.12.2015 in C.W.J.C. No. 12881 of 2015 this appeal

Patna High Court LPA No.247 of 2016 dt.28-03-2017 2/3 has been filed under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent.

2. It is seen that in the matter of appointment of Anganwari Sevika to Centre situated in Gandhi Gali, Ward No. 31, Nagar Parishad- Danapur, Patna concurrent findings have been recorded by the Deputy Director and the District Programme Officer which is affirmed by the learned Writ Court and, therefore, the concurrent findings as indicated hereinabove does not call for any interference.

3. So far as the claim of the appellant to say that she has a right to seek appointment to Centre No. 236 and further the fact that no proper notice or advertisement for appointment to this centre was published is concerned, we find that the learned Writ Court has directed for issuance of fresh advertisement and conducting the selection process in accordance with law and a fresh advertisement has already been issued for appointment to this centre on 20th of July, 2015. That being so, now when the further selection process is already progressed, we see no reason to interfere into the matter. The appellant may apply or seek relaxation of her age in case she is interested to seek appointment to the Centre in question. Merely because the said centre was not properly notified, we cannot direct for appointment of the appellant once we find that a fresh notification has been issued for selection to the centre in question. That being so, no

Patna High Court LPA No.247 of 2016 dt.28-03-2017 3/3 further indulgence into the matter is called for.

4. The Letters Patent Appeal is, therefore, dismissed. (Rajendra Menon, CJ) (Sudhir Singh, J) P.K.P.

AFR/NAFR N.A.F.R.

CAV DATE N.A.

Uploading Date 06.04.2017 Transmission Date