← Library
Patna High CourtCWJC/4358/2015dismissed

Veena Kumari v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2015-03-24Mr. Justice Ajay Kumar Tripathi2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4358 of 2015 ===========================================================

1. Veena Kumari wife of Sri Niranjan Kumar resident of village Murade, P.S. Haveli Kharagpur, District Munger.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. The Director, I.C.D.S., Social Welfare Deptt., Govt. of Bihar, 2nd Floor, Indira Bhawan, Patna.

3. The Commissioner, Munger Division, Munger.

4. The District Magistrate, Munger.

5. Deputy Director Welfare, Munger Division, Munger.

6. District Programme Officer, Munger.

7. Child Development Project Officer (in short C.D.P.O.) Haveli Kharagpur, District Munger.

8. Anjali Kumari, wife of Sri Ajay Yadav resident of village Murade, P.S. Haveli Kharagpur, District Munger.

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Subodh Chandra Jha For the Respondent/s : Mr. AAG3-Roy Shivajee Nath =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 24-03-2015 Annexure- 8 is the order passed by the Deputy Director, Welfare, Munger in Case No.23 of 2014. The date of the order is 10.2.2015. By virtue of this order the case of the private respondent has been allowed and her appointment has been upheld justifying the non- selection of the petitioner to be correct. Contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is a married lady. She has nothing to do with her father. The materials, which has been talked about in the impugned order contained in Annexure- 8, will not come in the way of the petitioner.

Patna High Court CWJC No.4358 of 2015 dt.24-03-2015 2/2 The Court has only to remind the petitioner about the provision contained in Clause 4.9 of the guidelines issued by the Welfare Department in the year 2011 in this regard. If the same is taken into consideration, there is no infirmity in the impugned order. Writ is dismissed.

(Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J) sk U