Ranju Devi v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12122 of 2014 ====================================================== Ranju Devi Wife of Suryadeo Paswan resident of village- Telmar, P.S.- Telmar, District- Nalanda .. Petitioner

Versus

1.

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

The Director, Integrated Child Development Scheme, Social Welfare Department, Government of Bihar, Patna 3.

The District Magistrate, Nalanda 4.

The Sub-Divisional Officer, Biharsharif, Nalanda 5.

The Child Development Project Officer, Harnaut, Biharsharif, Nalanda 6.

Heena Kumari wife of Navtam Paswan, resident of village- Telmar, P.S.- Telmar, District- Nalanda ... ... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner :

Mr. BB Prasad, Advocate and Usha Kumari Singh, Advocate For the Respondents :

Mr.Pankaj Kumar Sinha, AC to SC 14 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD ORAL ORDER 11-03-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the State.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has wrongly been ignored in the selection of Anganwari Sevika at Anganwari Center Telmar Harijan Tola, Ward No. 8 of Telmar Gram Panchayat in block Harnaut, District Nalanda.

The petitioner asserts that by illegally ignoring her legitimate claim, respondent no.6 Heena Kumari has been selected as Anganwari Sevika for the Center in question. Petitioner's counsel submits that the petitioner had approached

Patna High Court CWJC No.12122 of 2014(2) dt.11-03-2019 2/2 the District Magistrate, Nalanda with her grievance, who in turn, directed the Sub Divisional Officer, Biharsharif to examine the claim of the petitioner. Annexure 9 is said to be the report of the SDO, Biharsharif to the District Magistrate, Nalanda. However, it is submitted that till date no decision has been taken by the District Magistrate, Nalanda in respect of the report having been submitted on 19.10.2013.

In view of the limited grievance, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the writ petition pending. The District Magistrate, Nalanda should take a final decision, if the same has not been taken till date, and communicate his decision to the petitioner within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

Writ petition is disposed of.

(Madhuresh Prasad, J) Shashi U