Seema Kumari v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3535 of 2016 ======================================================

1. Seema Kumari W/o Rajiv Kumar Ram Resident of Ward No. 12 Village: Premnagar Bhalura, Po Bhalura, Ps. Aurai District Muzaffarpur. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Social welfare Department, Govt. of Bihar, 3 South Gandhi Maidan Behind Residence of Police Superintendent Gramin Patna-1

2. Director , Directorate Integrated Child Development Services, 3rd Floor, Indira Bhawan, Jawahar Lal Neharu Marg Patna-1

3. The District Magistrate District Muzaffarpur.

4. The District Programme officer, Integrated Child Development Services District Muzaffapur.

5. The Child Development Project Officer (C.D.P.O), Block Aurai District Muzaffarpur.

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Prakritita Sharma, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Rakesh Prabhat, A.C. to S.C.21 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL ORDER 05-02-2018 Heard Mr. Prakritita Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Rakesh Prabhat, A.C. to S.C.21 for the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by the laid back attitude of the authorities under the guidelines regulating the appointment of Anganbari Sevika/Sahayika in not taking the selection process initiated for appointment of Anganbari Sevika/Sahayika, Centre No. 206, Ward No.12, Panchayat Bhalura, P.S. Aurai in the district of Muzaffarpur to its conclusion. According to the petitioner, an advertisement was issued in the year 2013 vide Annexure-1 and a combined list was prepared and that the

Patna High Court CWJC No.3535 of 2016 (2) dt.05-02-2018 2/2 petitioner got selected in the Aam Sabha so held for the purpose but the follow up process did not take place leading to the writ petition.

The situation is accepted by the respondents in paragraph 7 of the counter affidavit.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering that a selection process initiated remains hanging as admitted by the respondents, I deem it proper to direct the District Programme Officer, Muzaffarpur, respondent No.4 herein to consider the grievance of the petitioner and dispose of the same in accordance with law within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. (Jyoti Saran, J) Bibhash/- U