Rinki Kumari v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12015 of 2014 ====================================================== Rinki Kumari wife of Sri Shashikant Singh Resident of Taregna Gola, P.S. Masaurhi, District - Patna ... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State Of Bihar

2. The Principal Secretary, Welfare Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna

3. The Director, ICDS, Welfare Department Govt. of Bihar, Patna

4. The Divisional Commissioner, Patna Division, Patna

5. The Collector, Patna

6. The District Programme Officer, Patna

7. The Sub - Divisional Magistrate, Masaurhi, Patna

8. The Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Masaurhi, Patna

9. The Child Development Project officer, Masaurhi, District - Patna

10. The Chairman, Masaurhi Nagar Parishad, Masaurhi, Patna

11. Selection Committee through its Chairman cum Ward Counselor, Ward No. 7, Masaurhi Nagar Parishad, Patna

12. Sudha Kumari wife of Akhilesh Kumar Singh Resident of Taregna Gola, P.S. Masaurhi, District - Patna ... ... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner :

Mr. Bajarangi Lal, Advocate For the Respondents :

Mr. Rakesh Kr. Shrivastava, AC to GP 15 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD ORAL ORDER 25-02-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the State.

Order dated 9.2.2011 passed by the Collector, Patna cancelling petitioner's selection as Anganbari Sevika from Center No. 88 in Ward No. 7 of Nagar Parishad, Masaurhi and directing for selection of respondent no.12, has been challenged by the petitioner. She has also challenged order of the Divisional Commissioner, Patna Division, Patna on her Misc. Appeal No.91 of 2012 preferred against order of Collector, Patna, since the same has also been rejected by the Divisional Commissioner.

Patna High Court CWJC No.12015 of 2014(2) dt.25-02-2019 2/3 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent no.7 was having her name mentioned in the electoral roll at two different places, namely, Usman Chak and Masaurhi Nagar Parishad. On account of such infirmity in her candidature respondent no.12 was not eligible for consideration and as such orders have wrongly been passed allowing her selection to the Anganbari center in question.

Respondent State referring to averments made in the counter affidavit has submitted that the petitioner as well as respondent no.12 have earlier approached this Court. After series of litigation, matter has finally been decided after a report submitted in the matter by the DCLR, Masaurhi. The report reveals that name of respondent no.12, who was admittedly the first empanelled candidate has been deleted from the voter list of Usmanchak prior to the selection process pursuant to which the selection in question has been made.

In view of aforesaid situation, candidature of respondent no.12 was not suffering with any disqualification on account of her name being entered at two different places in the voter list. Accordingly, respondent no.12 could not be deprived of selection in question.

Aforesaid position has not been disputed or denied by

Patna High Court CWJC No.12015 of 2014(2) dt.25-02-2019 3/3 learned counsel for the petitioner by filing any re-joinder to the counter affidavit. In the facts of the case, this Court does not find any occasion to interfere with the impugned orders, passed by the authorities.

Writ petition is devoid of merit and is dismissed. (Madhuresh Prasad, J) Shashi U