← Library
Patna High CourtCWJC/8557/2016disposed

Poonam Devi @ Punam Kumari v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2019-03-14Mr. Justice Madhuresh Prasad2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8557 of 2016 ====================================================== Poonam Devi @ Punam Kumari wife of Rajesh Kumar Chaudhary, resident of Village and P.O.- Madarna, P.S.Dist- Vaishali ... Petitioner

Versus

1.

The State Of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Department of Education, Government of Bihar, Patna 2.

Director Primary Education Department of Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 3.

Collector and District Magistrate, Vaishali at Hajipur. 4.

Deputy Development Commissioner, Vaishali at Hajipur. 5.

Block Development Officer, Vaishali.

6.

Poonam Kumari, wife of Raju Ram (by caste Chamar), resident of VillageBishunpur Paltu, P.S.- Vaishali, P.S. and District- Vaishali. ... ... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner :

Mr.Mukul Sinha, Advocate Mr. Suraj Kumar, Advocate For the State :

Mr.Jay Prakash Shasrma, AC to GP 21 for respondent no.6 : Mr. Rakesh Nr. Singh, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD ORAL ORDER 14-03-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.

Mr. Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that since the petitioner could not produce the Electoral Roll of 2012 before the Collector, Vaishali at Hajipur (respondent no.3) while deciding the Miscellaneous Case (Vikash Mitra) No. 99/ 2013-14, respondent no.3 has recorded a wrong findings in respect of the petitioner's residence in Chintamanipur Gram Panchayat on the basis of Electoral Roll of 2012. He submits that the petitioner would be approaching the Collector, Vaishali (respondent no.3) highlighting the aforesaid

Patna High Court CWJC No.8557 of 2016(2) dt.14-03-2019 2/2 factual infirmity appearing in order dated 15.3.2016 issued by respondent no.3.

This Court is not aware whether fresh process initiated for selection of Vikash Mitra under order dated 15.3.2016 has concluded, or whether the issue remains alive. In the event, the petitioner approaches respondent no.3 and if the issue is alive, her claim should be decided by respondent no. 3 in accordance with law.

Writ petition stands disposed of.

(Madhuresh Prasad, J) Shashi U