Babita Kumari v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17881 of 2014 ====================================================== Babita Kumari, W/o Sri Ramu Sharma, Resident of Mohalla - Barhi Tola, Maripur, Ward No. -8, P.S. - Kazimohammadpur, District - Muzaffarpur ... ... Petitioner

Versus

1.

The State Of Bihar, through the Director, Social Welfare Department, Bihar, Patna.

2.

District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur 3.

District Programme Officer, Muzaffarpur 4.

Child Development Project Officer, Mushahari Sadar, Muzaffarpur 5.

Ward Parshad, Ward No. 8, Mohalla - Maripur, Baxi Colony, P.S. - Kazimohammadpur, District - Muzaffarpur ... ... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner :

Mr. Diwakar Prasad Karn, Adv.

Mr. Chandra Shekhar Anand, Adv.

For the State :

Mr. Prashant Pratap, GP-2 Mr. Sanjay Kumar, AC to GP-2 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD ORAL ORDER 01-12-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

The grievance in the instant writ petition is that the Aam Sabha was not being constituted for selection of Anganbari Sevika & Sahaika in Ward No. 8, Mushahari Sadar, Anganbari Centre No. 19 (Maripur Baxi Colony).

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, two years after the writ petition was filed in the year 2014, the District Programme Officer, Muzaffarpur sent a letter to the Child Development Project Officer, Mushahari Sadar, dated

Patna High Court CWJC No.17881 of 2014(3) dt.01-12-2022 2/2 10.12.2016 bearing Memo No. 1575 as contained in Annexure-5 to the Interlocutory Application No. 338 of 2017, directing that appropriate action be taken for selection. He submits that he has up-to-date telephonic instructions that in spite of the said letter dated 10.12.2016, no action has been taken pursuant to the said communication. Since, the action is required to be taken by the Authorities themselves, pendency of the writ application would serve no use to purpose.

This Court, would, therefore, direct the Respondent No. 2 to ensure that the process of selection, if still not done, should be taken to its logical conclusion expeditiously and without any delay, in accordance with law.

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. (Madhuresh Prasad, J) Raj kishore/- U