Kamini Kumari v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16945 of 2018 ====================================================== Kamini Kumari, W/o Amod Kumar, Resident of Village- Mirjapur, PostMirjapur, Thana- Mahua, District- Vaishali. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State Of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Bihar, Patna. 2.

The District Magistrate, Vaishali.

3.

The Balvikash Padhadhikari, District- Vaishali. 4.

The District Programme Padadhikari, Vaishali. 5.

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

6.

Rekha Kumari, W/o Shri Arvind Rai, District Vaishali, Resident of Village and Thana Mirjapur.

7.

The Commissioner, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Ajay Kumar Mishra, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Mr.Md. Raisul Haque, SC10 Mr.Md. Obaidullah, AC to SC10 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD ORAL ORDER 01-11-2022 The Divisional Commissioner, Tirhut Division, may be impleaded as Respondent No.7, as prayed by learned counsel for the petitioner.

The admitted position that emerges from the pleadings on record and submission of the parties is that order dated 25.02.2016, passed in case no.84 of 2015 by the District Programme Officer, Respondent No.4, was assailed by the petitioner before the District Magistrate and that the same is pending consideration.

Patna High Court CWJC No.16945 of 2018(2) dt.01-11-2022 2/2 Since the appeal has not been decided till date, this Court would take into consideration the provisions contained in Clause 12 of the 2019 Guidelines for Selection of Aanganwari Sevika and Sahayika, which has come into force with effect from 27.05.019, specifically repealing the earlier guidelines. As per Clause-12 the order of the District Programme Office is subject to appeal/revision before the Divisional Commissioner. In view thereof, this Court would direct the Respondent No.2 to transfer the records in relation to the petitioner's appeal before the Respondent No.7 within two weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

Let the Respondent No.7 consider the petitioner's case expeditiously, in accordance with law, without any undue adjournments or unnecessary delay, after hearing the parties. Writ application is disposed of.

(Madhuresh Prasad, J) shashank/- U