Chhaya Rani Singh v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Letters Patent Appeal No.943 of 2014 IN Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 22400 of 2012 =========================================================== Chhaya Rani Singh W/o Jagdish Kumar Singh @ Ramanand Singh Resident of Village Puwal, P.O. Dhachna, Police Station Barsoi, District Katihar. .... .... Appellant/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through Secretary, Department of Welfare, Bihar, Patna.

2. The Director Social Welfare Department, Bihar, Patna.

3. The Collector, Katihar.

4. The District Programme Officer, Katihar.

5. The Block Development Officer, Block Barsoi, District Katihar.

6. The Child Development Programme Officer, Barsoi, District Katihar.

7. The Mukhiya cum Chairman, Gram Sabha Gram Panchayat Belwadangi Block, Barsoi, District Katihar.

8. The Rangila Singh W/o Hem Narayan Singh Resident of Jagatpur, Police Station Barsoi, District Katihar.

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

For the Appellant/s : Mr. Md. Rahmatullah, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sumant Kumar Singh, Ac to GA-2 =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) Date: 23-03-2017 Seeking exception to an order dated 18.4.2014 passed by the learned Writ Court in C.W.J.C. No.22400 of 2012 in the matter of terminating the appointment of the petitioner as an Anganwari Sevika, this appeal has been filed under Clause-10 of the Letters Patent.

A perusal of the order of the learned Writ Court goes to show that after going through the original records, learned Writ

Patna High Court LPA No.943 of 2014 dt.23-03-2017 2/2 Court has recorded a finding to say that the petitioner's appointment initially based on residence is doubtful.

It is also seen that the writ Court after taking into consideration various aspects of the matter, including the termination order of 2006, the order passed by the Director, I.C.D.S. on 6.9.2012 after remand by this Court in C.W.J.C. No.10473 of 2007 has refused to interfere with the matter as the question of residence of the appellant was found to be doubtful Keeping in view the reasons that weighed with the learned Writ Court for refusing to grant the claim of the petitioner, we see no error in the same warranting re-consideration. The application is dismissed.

(Rajendra Menon, CJ) (Sudhir Singh, J) K.C.jha/- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE N/A Uploading Date 29.03.2017 Transmission Date N/A