Kumari Madhu Pandey v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7970 of 2012 =========================================================== Kumari Madhu Pandey Wife Of Vasistha Kumar Mishr Resident of Village + Post Mahammada P.S. Baruraj Anchal Baruraj at Motipur District Muzaffarpur .... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. The Director Welfare, Department of Welfare Govt. of Bihar, Old Secretariat Building, Patna

3. The Deputy Director Welfare, Department of Welfare Govt. of Bihar, Tirhut Commissionary (Muzaffarpur)

4. The District Magistrate , Muzaffarpur Collectorate Office Muzaffarpur

5. The District Project Programme Officer, Welfare Department District Muzaffarpur Collectorate Office Muzaffarpur

6. The Child Development Project Officer (Welfare Department) Bauraj at Motipur, District Muzaffarpur

7. The Panchayat Secretary/Sachiv Panchayat Mamammada of Anchal Baruraj at Moripur District Muzafarpur

8. Ruma Singh Wife of Manoj Kumar Singh, Present Mukhiya, Panchayati Raj Village Mahammada Village Bhagwanpur P.O. Mahammada Via. Motipur P.S. Baruraj District Muzaffarpur .... .... Respondents =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner : Mr. Kripa Nand Jha, Advocate For the Respondent s : Mr. Nishant Kumar Jha, AC to SC 28. =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 06-09-2017 The present petition has been filed for a direction to the concerned authority to issue appointment letter to the petitioner who has been selected as Anganwari Sevika for Mahammada Panchayat Ward No. 8 under Gram Panchayati Raj, Village Mahammada at Anchal Baruraj at Motipur, District Muzaffarpur.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that despite having been selected as Anganwari Sevika and despite directions of the District Programme Officer, Muzaffarpur the appointment letter has not been issued by the Child Development Project Officer.

Patna High Court CWJC No.7970 of 2012 dt.06-09-2017

3. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the appointment letter has not been issued as the petitioner does not belong to the majority of General category to which learned counsel for the petitioner has replied that the post in question is meant for General category and she has rightly been selected.

4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on a consideration of the materials on record, this Court is of the view that the ends of justice will be met by permitting the petitioner to file a fresh representation before the District Programme Officer, Muzaffarpur (Respondent no. 5) for redressal of her grievances. If any such representation is filed within a period of two weeks from today, the same shall be considered on its own merits and disposed of after grant of opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in accordance with law expeditiously and in any event preferably within a period of two months thereafter.

5. The writ petition stands disposed of.

(Vikash Jain, J) Chandran/BT AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE N.A.

Uploading Date 07.09.2017 Transmission Date N.A.