Seema Kumari v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12158 of 2014 ====================================================== Seema Kumari Wife of Surendra Kumar Resident of Mohalla Masumganj Nabiganj, Police Station Bhagwan Bazar, District- Saran. ... ... Petitioner

Versus

1.

The State Of Bihar through the Principal Secretary Welfare Department, Government of Bihar, Patna 2.

The Commissioner, Saran Division at Chapra.

3.

The District Magistrate, Saran at Chapra.

4.

The Deputy Director Welfare, Saran Division at Chapra. 5.

The District Program Officer, Saran at Chapra. 6.

The Child Development Project Officer, Chapra Sadar, Chapra. 7.

Sarita Chaudhary Wife of Manoj Kumar Chaudhary Resident of Mohalla Masumganj Nabiganj, Police Station Bhagwan Bazar, District- Saran. 8.

Kumari Madhu Wife of Manoj Gupta Resident of Mohalla Masumganj Nabiganj, Police Station Bhagwan Bazar, District- Saran. ... ... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Awadhesh Kumar Singh Mr, Ram Tujabh Singh For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Ravish Chandra, AC to SC 6 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD ORAL ORDER 11-03-2019 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the respondent State.

The writ petition has been filed to quash order dated 12.4.2014 issued by respondent No. 2 in Anganwari Appeal Nos. 158 of 2012 and 160 of 2012. A composite order has been passed in respect of two appeals under order dated 12.4.2014. The petitioner has also sought a direction in her favour for selection as Anganwari Sevika for the center in question.

Patna High Court CWJC No.12158 of 2014(2) dt.11-03-2019 2/2 The specific stand of the respondents in the counter affidavit is that neither petitioner nor her representative participated or appeared in the Aam Sabha. Thus, the petitioner has committed violation of Rule 6.4 of the guidelines. The petitioner, therefore, has no legitimate claim for the selection in question. The petitioner wanted to take advantage of the dispute between respondent Nos. 7 and 8 at the appellate stage. The petitioner, without having any valid claim on account of absence in the Aam Sabha, has filed the instant writ petition knowing well that on account of her non participation at Aam Sabha she was disqualified for consideration in the process.

The specific stand of the respondents in the counter affidavit is that after due consideration of the matter on the basis of records the issue has finally been decided by common order dated 12.4.2014 which does not warrant any interference. The stand of the respondents in the counter affidavit has not been denied or disputed by filing any rejoinder. This Court does not find any infirmity in the stand taken by the respondents.

The writ petition is devoid of merit and the same is dismissed.

(Madhuresh Prasad, J) SNkumar/- U