Rina Kumari v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13513 of 2008 ====================================================== Rina Kumari, wife of Sri Ashok Kumar, resident of village- Marha, Tola Tarwan, P.O.Amarul, P.S. Dobhi in the district of Gaya .... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna

2. The District Magistrate, Gaya

3. The Sub Divisional Officer, Sherghati, Gaya

4. The Child Development Project Officer, Dobhi Block, Dobhi in the district of Gaya

5. The Mukhiya of Kusha Bija Gram Panchayat, P.O. Amarut, P.S. Dobhi in the district of Gaya

6. Panchayat Secretary, Kusha Bija Gram Panchayat, P.O. Amarut, P.S. Dobhu in the district of Gaya

7. Kumari Indu Sinha, wife of Sri Binod Kumar, resident of villageMarha , Tola Tarwan, P.O. Marut, P.S. Dobhi in the district of Gaya .... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dinu Kumar Mr. Rohit Mishra Mr. Manoj Kumar For the Respondent/s : Mr. GP-7 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 07-09-2015 Heard Sri Dinu Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Dhurjati Kr. Prasad, learned Govt. Pleader no.7. The petitioner, invoking writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article-226 of the Constitution of India, has prayed for directing the Respondent to issue appointment letter in her favour to the post of Anganbari Sevika inMarha Dadpur Centre under Kushabija Gram Panchayat, Block- Dobhi in the district of Gaya. It has further been prayed to quash part of the merit list dated 03.06.2008, whereby private Respondent no.7 was selected as

Patna High Court CWJC No.13513 of 2008 (2) dt.07-09-2015 2/2 Anganbari Sevika declaring that the petitioner does not have qualification as the father-in-law of the petitioner was in government service.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that candidature of the petitioner was rejected only on the ground that father-in-law of the petitioner was a Government servant. Learned State Counsel, referring to Annexure-A to the counter affidavit i.e. guidelines for selection of Anganbari Sevika/ Sahayika, submits that the guidelines itself contemplates that no ward of government servant, even dealers appointed by the Government, shall be eligible to be selected as Anganbari Sevika. He has specifically placed clause (e) of the guideline. In view of conditions imposed in the guidelines, the Court is of the opinion that rejection of candidature of the petitioner on the ground that she was daughter-in-law of a government servant was not incorrect.

I do not find any ground to pass any positive order. The writ petition stands dismissed.

(Rakesh Kumar, J) NKS/- U