Pinki Kumari v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.197 of 2015 ====================================================== Pinki Kumari wife of Sri Girendra Jha, resident of village- Nikashi, Police Station- Singhwara, District- Darbhanga .... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Social Welfare

2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Social Welfare, Govt. of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna

3. The District Magistrate, Darbhanga

4. The District Programme Officer, Darbhanga

5. The Child Development Project Officer, Singhwara, Darbhanga

6. Smt. Nishi Kumari W/o late Mritunjay Jha Resident of Village- Nikashi, Police Station - Kamtaul, District- Darbhanga .... Respondens ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner : Mr. Shailendra Kumar Jha, Advocate For the State : Mr. G.P. Ojha, GA 7 and Mr. Gopal Krishna, AC to GA 7 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD ORAL ORDER 30-01-2018 Heard counsel for the petitioner, the State and the respondent no. 6.

The petitioner has filed the writ petition seeking a direction for her appointment as Anganwari Sevika of Angan Bari Kendra No. 94, Kikashi Amat Tola of East Hariharpur Gram Panchayat. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was at first position in the merit list/panel prepared for appointment of Anganwari Sevika in the year 2013. It is the petitioner's averment in paragraph 15 of the writ petition that an advertisement was published on 18.11.2014 in the daily newspaper "Dainik Jagaran" for appointment of Anganwari Sevika to the Center in question. The petitioner did

Patna High Court CWJC No.197 of 2015 (7) dt.30-01-2018 2/2 not apply pursuant to this advertisement. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the said advertisement was not acted upon.

Since the petitioner has not applied pursuant to the said advertisement and the panel on which he relied has not been published pursuant to an advertisement in light of provisions of Clause 8 of the Anganwari Sevika/Sahaika Appointment Guidelines, 2011, the petitioner has no indefeasible right. The writ petition is therefore misconceived and is accordingly dismissed.

(Madhuresh Prasad, J) Shashi U