Patrika Kumari v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3504 of 2023 ====================================================== Patrika Kumari, Wife of Anil Kumar Pankaj, Resident of Gayatri Colony, Ambai Takkichak, Telitola, P.S.- Habibpur, District- Bhagalpur. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

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

2.

The Director, Directorate of ICDS, Indira Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna. 3.

The Commissioner, Bhagalpur Division, District- Bhagalpur. 4.

The District Magistrate, Bhagalpur.

5.

The District Programme Officer, ICDS, Bhagalpur. 6.

The Block Development Officer, Jagdishpur, District- Bhagalpur. 7.

The Child Development Project Officer, Jagdishpur, District- Bhagalpur. 8.

The Female Supervisor, the Child Development Project, District- Bhagalpur. 9.

Shiromani @ Shiromani Kumari, Wife of Surendra Prasad Sah Resident of Takkichak, Telitola, P.O.- Mijanhat, P.S.- Habibpur, District- Bhagalpur. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Pranav Kumar Jha, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Md. Raisul Haque (SC-10) Md. Obaidullah, AC to SC-10 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD ORAL ORDER 02-08-2023 1.

The order of District Programme Officer dated 11.01.2023 passed in Re-open Misc. (Anganwadi) Case No. 25/2019-20 has been challenged. By the said order, the petitioner's claim for being selected in place of private Respondent No. 09 as Aanganwadi Sevika to Centre No. 138 Khiribandh Panchayat, Jagdishpur Block has been disallowed. 2.

It is not in dispute that the Directorate of Integrated Child Development Services has issued guidelines for selection

Patna High Court CWJC No.3504 of 2023(2) dt.02-08-2023 2/2 of Anganwari Sevika/Sahaiyka wherein the remedy of revision has been provided before the Divisional Commissioner against the order of the District Programme Officer.

3.

This Court is of the opinion that in view of such adequate efficacious remedy wherein all disputed issues being raised in the instant proceedings can be considered by the authorities, there is no occasion for this Court to exercise its extra ordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

4.

The petitioner would be at liberty to avail remedy in accordance with the guidelines.

5.

If the issue of limitation arises, the pendency of the instant writ application would be available to the petitioner to meet the issue of delay.

6.

Writ application is dismissed with liberty.

(Madhuresh Prasad, J) SUMIT/- U