Asha Kumari v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4182 of 2016 ====================================================== Asha Kumari Wife of Deepak Kumar Chaudhary, R/o Village- Nawada Mohammadpur, P.O.- Mohammadpur, P.S.- Barh, District- Patna ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State Of Bihar and Ors 2.

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

The Collector of Patna, District- Patna 4.

The District Programme Officer, Patna, District- Patna 5.

The Child Development Project Officer, Barh Block- Aathmalgola, DistrictPatna 6.

The Panchayat Secretary, Nawada, Mallah Toli, Athmalgola, Barh, Patna ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Sanjay Kumar Mr. Sarvdeo Singh For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Kamlesh Kishore, AC to SC12 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD ORAL ORDER 09-05-2019 Mr. Singh, appearing for the petitioner, submits that on account of a very minor irregularity alleged in course of inspection petitioner's appointment as Anganwari Sevika for Center No. 177 has been cancelled ignoring the decision of the State Government dated 20.6.2012, which mandates that in respect of first offence a minor punishment of warning should be awarded.

The issue that is raised is violation of the said decision of the State Government dated 20.6.2012 issued by the Directorate of ICDS.

Counsel for the respondent State submits that in the

Patna High Court CWJC No.4182 of 2016(2) dt.09-05-2019 2/2 meantime some other person has come to be appointed as sevika for the center in question.

It is needless to say that if the appointment has been made during pendency of the claim of the petitioner the new appointee would be required to be heard in the matter. Counsel for the petitioner may approach the Appellate Authority under the guidelines. In the event she approaches Appellate Authority within four weeks then the issue of delay should not be raised in filing the appeal and the same should be considered on its own merit in the light of the said decision of the Directorate dated 20.6.2012 and disposed of after hearing necessary parties in accordance with law expeditiously, without any undue delay and preferably within a period of three months. The writ petition stands disposed of.

(Madhuresh Prasad, J) SNkumar/- U