Pinki Kumari v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18867 of 2013 ====================================================== Pinki Kumari Wife Of Manish Kumar Choudhary Resident Of Mohalla Post Office Road Rafiganj, Post Office Rafiganj, Ward No. 11, District - Aurangabad Bihar ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State Of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Schedule Castes & Schedule Tribes Welfare Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2.

The Principal Secretary, Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes Welfare Department, Government Of Bihar 3.

The District Magistrate, Aurangabad, Bihar 4.

The Sub-Divisional Officer, Aurangabad, Bihar 5.

The District Welfare Officer, Aurangabad, Bihar 6.

The Executive Officer, Nagar Panchayat, Rafiganj District Aurangabad, Bihar 7.

The Block Welfare Officer, Rafiganj, District Aurangabad, Bihar 8.

The Bihar Mahadalit Vikash Mission, Special Officer 4, Desh Ratan Marg, Patna, Bihar 9.

Sangita Devi Wife Of Dharmendra Das Resident Of Village Jondhi , Post Office Pogar, Police Station Rafiganj, District - Aurangabad, Bihar ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Amarendra Kumar Singh, Adv.

For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Jawahar Pd. Karn, Adv.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA ORAL ORDER 23-01-2023

1. The petitioner by way of this writ petition challenges the Advertisement issued for appointment of Vikas Mitra under a particular Scheme, floated by the Welfare Department of the State of Bihar namely the Bihar Mahadalit Vikas Mission.

2. The post is neither under the State Services or

Patna High Court CWJC No.18867 of 2013(2) dt.23-01-2023 2/2 Subordinate Services and is purely contractual. The petitioner claims that she was already appointed earlier as a Vikas Mitra, but her appointment was challenged by the respondent no.9 and she was not allowed to perform duties. A fresh Advertisement has been issued.

3. I have considered the submission, merely because the petitioner was placed in the select list, which was not acted upon and the petitioner was not allowed to perform her duties. No right is created in her favour. Fresh Advertisement has already been issued. The petitioner is always free to participate in the said Advertisement.

4. Moreover, the writ petition has been pending since 2013 without there being any order passed. By the efflux of time, the writ petition has become otios.

5. The writ petition is dismissed.

(Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J) Pravinkumar/- Item No. 36 U