Kanchan Kumari v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6514 of 2015 ====================================================== Kanchan Kumari Daughter of Rakhal Prasad Singh, Resident of VillageBeldiah, P.O.- Ahiro, Police Station- Dhoraiya, District- Banka. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State Of Bihar 2.

The Director, Social Welfare Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3.

The Director, Integrated Child Development Scheme Directorate Social Welfare Department, Indira Bh 4.

The Director, State Society for Ultra Poor and Social Welfare Integrated Child Development Services 5.

The District Magistrate, Banka.

6.

The District Selection Committee Banka through its Chairman, District Programme Officer, Banka.

7.

The District Programme Officer -cum - Deputy Project Director Banka, District - Banka.

8.

The Project Director N.M.U-Cum-Director, I.C.D.S. Directorate Bihar, Patna, 9.

The Child Development Project Officer cum - Assistant Project Director, Banka.

10.

The Child Development Project Officer, Dhoraiya, District - Banka. 11.

Pinki Kumari Wife of Shiv Shankar Kumar, Police Station Dhoraiya District - Banka.

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Balram Kapri, Advocate For the State :

Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha, AC to GA 9 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 26-03-2019 Writ petition has been filed challenging the order of the District Programme Officer, Banka dated 16.03.2015 whereby the petitioner's selection as Uddipika has been made subject to verification of the marksheet and other testimonials submitted by the petitioner.

Patna High Court CWJC No.6514 of 2015 dt.26-03-2019 2/2 Neither counsel for the petitioner nor the State counsel is in a position to inform this Court whether the verification exercise has been completed and what is the fate of the same. This Court would only consider the fact that nature of selection of the petitioner as Uddipika was contractual and for the limited period. Subsequent upon her selection in February, 2015 more than four years have lapsed. Petitioner cannot be aggrieved by verification of documents submitted by her in support of her claim for selection as Uddipika.

This Court does not find any reason to interfere with the order date 16.03.2015 of the District Programme Officer. Writ petition is devoid of merit and the same is dismissed.

(Madhuresh Prasad, J) Prakash/- AFR/NAFR CAV DATE Uploading Date Transmission Date