Rekha Kumari v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.19087 of 2011 ===========================================================

1. Rekha Kumari W/O Birendra Kumar Resident Of Village - Rajchak , P.O.- Bidauli , P.S.- Bhagwanganj , District -Patna .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State Of Bihar

2. The District Magistrate, Patna

3. The Deputy Development Commissioner, Patna Patna

4. The District Welfare Officer, Patna Patna

5. The Child Development Project Officer, Masaurhi Patna

6. Smt. Priti Devi, Mukhiya, Gram Panchyat Dewariya Block Masaurhi , District - Patna Patna

7. The Panchayat -Secretary, Gram Panchayat, Dewariya Block Masaurhi , DistrictPatna Patna

8. Smt. Reeta Devi W/O Anil Kumar Resident Of Village - Rajchak , P.S.- Bidauli , P.S.- Bhagwangang , District - Patna .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ranjeet Kumar Singh For the Respondent/s : Mr. Madanjeet Kumar, GP 20 =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 07-09-2016 The Court had summoned original record to verify certain facts because many a things were said and insinuated in the manner in which the petitioner was sought to be denied a right for consideration as an appointment for Aanganbari Sevika. From the original record and from the evidence which was there before the authorities it is evident that the petitioner and her husband were shown as voters at two different places, one in the district of Jehanabad and the other in the district of Patna. The voter list relates to the year 2006, therefore, a person cannot be a resident of

Patna High Court CWJC No.19087 of 2011 dt.07-09-2016 2/2 two different places simultaneously. For the folly committed by the petitioner or her husband she has to pay the price. Obviously, there is a serious dispute arising from the materials as to which geographical location the petitioner is a resident of.

In totality, therefore, the writ application is required to be dismissed. No direction can be issued in favour of the petitioner in view of the evidence available on original record before the authorities.

Writ is dismissed.

The original record is returned to the counsel for the State for safe keeping and official use.

(Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J) sk AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE Uploading Date 08.9.2016 Transmission Date