Prabha Kumari v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7756 of 2015 ====================================================== Prabha Kumari wife of Ajay Kumar Singh, resident of Nauhatta P.O Nauhatta, Police Station-Belaon Rampur District -Kaimur at Bhabhua. ... ... Petitioner

Versus

1.

The State Of Bihar through the District Magistrate Kaimur (Bhabhua) 2.

The Deputy Director, Welfare Division, Patna 3.

The District Programme Officer, Kaimur at Bhabhua 4.

The C.D.P.O Rampur, District Kaimur.

5.

Nirasha Kumari wife of Satendra Singh, resident of village Nauhatta, P.O Nauhatta, Police Station- Belaon, District Kaimur Bhabhua ... ... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Rajnish Kumar Dubey For the Respondent/s :

Mr.Gp3- S.K.Jha ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD ORAL ORDER 21-08-2019 The petitioner has challenged appointment of respondent No. 5 alleging that she did not fulfill the requisite age of 18 years on the date of submission of application as was mandatory in terms of the advertisement.

The issue stands admitted by counter affidavit which has been filed by respondent No. 5.

In view of the admitted position nothing further remains to be adjudicated. The authorities should proceed to readvertise the process of selection of Anganwari Sevika for the center in question. The authorities having regard to the fact that welfare schemes are to be disseminated from the center in question,

Patna High Court CWJC No.7756 of 2015(3) dt.21-08-2019 2/2 should proceed expeditiously and without undue delay. Till such time fresh advertisement is issued, the respondents should take steps as per guidelines to ensure functioning of the center in question.

The orders passed by the Deputy Director, Welfare, as well as the District Programme Officer are quashed since the admitted position that is emerging in the instant proceeding is that the respondent No. 5 was not eligible for appointment in question. It is, however, made clear that respondent No. 5 would be eligible to participate in the process of selection afresh along with all other eligible candidates.

The writ petition stands allowed.

(Madhuresh Prasad, J) SNkumar/- U