Shabnam Khatoon v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No 14798 of 2014 ====================================================== Shabnam Khatoon Wife of Md Jamil Resident of Village Lilza, Ward No. 8, Gram Panchayat Telwa East, P.S. Mahishi, District Saharsa. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

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

The Principal Secretary, Department of Social Welfare, Government of Bihar, Patna.

3.

The Commissioner Koshi Division, Saharsa.

4.

The District Magistrate, Saharsa.

5.

The Sub Divisional Officer, Sadar, Saharsa.

6.

The District Programme Officer (Establishment), Saharsa. 7.

The Child Development Project Officer, Mahishi, District - Saharsa. 8.

Nurani Begum Wife of Tauqeer Alam Resident of Village - Telwa East, Ward No. 7, P.S. Mahishi, District - Saharsa.

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

For the Petitioner/s :

M/s Pramod Mishra, Suraj Kr, Advocates For the S t a t e :

Ms Manisha Sinha, AC to GP VII ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD ORAL ORDER 17-09-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent-State.

It is submitted by the petitioner's counsel that ignoring the petitioner's candidature, who was superior in the process of selection of Anganbari Sevika, respondents have proceeded to appoint Nurani Begum, respondent No 8. The selection of respondent No 8 is impugned in the instant writ petition. Learned State Counsel submits that in view of the

Patna High Court CWJC No.14798 of 2014(2) dt.17-09-2019 2/2 amendment to the Guidelines dated 17.05.2013, the petitioner has remedy against appointment of respondent No 8 as the same comes under the issue relating to matter of appointment. The petitioner, therefore, should have approached the District Programme Officer under the amended Guidelines in respect of her grievance. Without availing the said remedy, she has directly rushed to this Court.

In view of the amendment and introduction of subclause 10.2 in the Guidelines of 2011 vide amendment dated 17.05.2013 and subsequent amendments, the petitioner would be at liberty to approach the present competent authority in respect of her challenge to selection of respondent No 8. Writ petition is disposed of.

(Madhuresh Prasad, J) M.E.H./- U