Savita Kumari v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3724 of 2023 ====================================================== Savita Kumari Wife of Pramod Paswan Resident of Village- Hari Prasad, P.S. Jandaha, District- Vaishali.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

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

2.

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

3.

The Director (I.C.D.S.), Social Welfare Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

4.

The District Magistrate, Vaishali.

5.

The Deputy Development Commissioner, Vaishali. 6.

The District Programme Officer (I.C.D.S.), Vaishali. 7.

The District Welfare Officer, Vaishali.

8.

The Sub- Divisional Officer, Mahua, District- Vaishali. 9.

The Child Development Project Officer, Jandaha, District- Vaishali. 10.

Suman Kumari, Wife of Pradip Das Resident of Village- Hari Prasad, P.S.- Jandaha, District- Vaishali.

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Pramod Mishra, Adv.

For the Respondent/s :

Mr.Prashant Pratap (GP2) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD ORAL ORDER 18-08-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

2. The writ petition has been filed with a grievance that the petitioner's appeal before the District Programme Officer ICDS (Hajipur) (Respondent No.6) bearing Complaint Case No. 05 of 2020 is pending for consideration since a long time. The petitioner has assailed selection of private respondent no. 10 before the Respondent No.6.

Patna High Court CWJC No.3724 of 2023(3) dt.18-08-2023 2/2

3. The learned State counsel draws attention of the Court towards the order dated 02.02.2023 passed by the Respondent No. 6 in Complaint Case 05 of 2020 vide Annexure-A to the counter affidavit.

4. The petitioner's grievance in the writ application, therefore, has become infructuous, as the complaint case is no longer pending. Having observed so, this Court would further observe that the order of the Respondent No.6, is subject to revisional appeal before the Divisional Commissioner, in terms of Clause 12 of the 2019 Guidelines for selection of Anganwadi Sevika & Sahayika issued by the Directorate of the ICDS. The petitioner would be at liberty to avail her remedies in accordance with law before the appropriate authority.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an appeal at this stage is likely to be met by the issue of delay. If such issue is raised, pendency of the instant proceeding before this Court would be available to the petitioner to over come the delay.

6. The writ petition is dismissed.

(Madhuresh Prasad, J) shyambihari/- U