Patna High CourtCWJC/17585/2015dismissed

Anjum Ara v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2016-08-23Mr. Justice Ajay Kumar Tripathi2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17585 of 2015 ===========================================================

1. Anjum Ara wife of Ajmal Hussain, resident of Village- Thutthi Bagh, P.O.- Sukhasan, P.S.- Barari, District- Katihar.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar, through Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

2. The Director (I.C.D.S.) of Social Welfare Department of Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

3. Assistant Director, (I.C.D.S.) of Social Welfare Department of Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

4. The Joint Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Purnea Commissioner, Purnea.

5. District Magistrate, Katihar.

6. District Programme Officer, Katihar.

7. Child Development Project Officer, Barari Block, District- Katihar.

8. Gollsitara Khatoon W/o Abdul Matin, resident of Village- Thutthi Bagh, P.O.- Sukhasan, P.S.- Barari, District- Katihar.

.... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Nafisuzzoha For the Respondent/s : Mr. S.K.Mandala, SC 3 Ms Neelam Kumari, AC to SC 3 =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 23-08-2016 Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State.

The impugned order is order passed by the appellate authority contained in Annexure- 6.

There are primarily two grounds on which claim of the petitioner for appointment as an Aanganbari Sevika has been negated. One, that her father was a Panchayat Teacher and drawing more than Rs.6000/- of remuneration from the State and the other aspect that she

Patna High Court CWJC No.17585 of 2015 dt.23-08-2016 2/2 was selected and placed at serial 2 of merit position even though she did not participate in the Aam Sabha. Obviously, the Panchayat had manipulated things for the reasons best known to them by showing participation or selection of a candidate, who did not even appear and participate.

With these two findings and keeping in mind that these engagements are on contractual basis and not permanent appointment under the State, the order is not required to be interfered with. Writ is dismissed.

(Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J) sk AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE Uploading Date 23.8.2016 Transmission Date