Deo Kumari v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Letters Patent Appeal No.1931 of 2015 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 823 of 2013 ====================================================== Deo Kumari, wife of Sri Deo Karan Mahto, resident of village- Patailea, Tola- Wadia, under Ward No. 11 of Village Panchayat Raj Patailea, P.S. & Block- Bhibhutipur, District- Samastipur .... .... Appellant/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Director, Directorate of Integrated Child Development Scheme (ICDS), Department of Social Welfare, Government of Bihar

2. The District Magistrate, Samastipur

3. The District Programme Officer, Samastipur

4. The Child Development Project Officer, Bhibhutipur, DistrictSamastipur

5. The Committee meant for the Selection of Anganwari Sevika for Anganwari Centre Patailea/Wadia, Circle No. 154, through its Member Secretary, the Child Development Project Officer, Bhibhutipur, DistrictSamastipur

6. Rekha Kumari, wife of Sri Raj Kumar Mahto, resident of villagePatailea, Tola- Wadia, under Ward No. 11 of Village Panchayat Raj Patailea, P.S. & Block- Bhibhutipur, District- Samastipur .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Appellant/s : Mr. Suneil Kumar Thakur, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Gp2- R.K. Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPADHYAY ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 11-12-2017 Seeking exception to an order dated 19.08.2015 passed by the Writ Court in C.W.J.C. No. 823 of 2013, this appeal has been filed under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent. In the matter of appointment of Anganbari Sevika to the centre in question and challenge made to the appointment of respondent no.6 in a selection process that was made on

Patna High Court LPA No.1931 of 2015 (4) dt.11-12-2017 2/2 09.06.2010, learned Writ Court refused to interfere into the matter on two grounds: (i) that the change based on Clause 4.12 of the guidelines issued in the year 2011 will not be applicable in the selection process that was held in 2010 and (ii) in the selection process that was held on 09.06.2010, the intermediate degree obtained by the petitioner itself was under cloud and on verification the institute, which issued the certificate, itself was not located.

Taking note of these considerations, the writ petition has been dismissed. We see no error in the order of the Writ Court warranting reconsideration.

The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.

(Rajendra Menon, CJ) (Anil Kumar Upadhyay, J) Uday/- U