Ranjan Devi v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.15556 of 2010 ====================================================== Ranjan Devi W/o Ram Pravesh Yadav R/o Vill Goura, P.S.Kusheshwar Asthan, Distt-Darbhanga .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. The Collector Darbhanga

3. The District Programme Officer Darbhanga

4. The C.D.P.O. Kusheshwar Asthan, Darbhanga

5. The Block Development Officer Kusheshwar Asthan, Distt-Darbhanga

6. The Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Raj Aurahi, Kusheshwar Asthan, Darbhanga

7. The Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Raj Aurahi, Kusheshwar Asthan, Darbhanga

8. Amirika Devi W/O Madan Yadav R/o Vill Goura, P.S.Kusheshwar Asthan, Distt-Darbhanga .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance:

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Girish Chandra Jha For the Respondent/s : GA-1 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH ORAL ORDER 26-07-2018 The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the appointment of respondent no. 8 and thereafter appointing the petitioner on the post of Anganwari Sevika in Aurahi Panchayat, village-Goura.

The only ground taken in the present writ petition by the petitioner is that she has filed a criminal case against the official respondents and has also further alleged that the respondent no. 8 has got less marks than the petitioner herein. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that as far as the criminal case is concerned, no

Patna High Court CWJC No.15556 of 2010 (8) dt.26-07-2018 2/2 complaint/FIR has been lodged against the respondent no. 8. It is further submitted that the petitioner does not belong to the B.P.L. category, hence the petitioner has not been considered for appointment on the aforesaid post of Anganwari Sevika. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records and I also find from the I.C.D.S. guidelines that the petitioner has not approached the appropriate authority before coming to this Court, hence the present petition is also barred on account of non-availing the alternative remedies available to the petitioner herein.

In any view of the matter, even on merits, the petitioner does not have any case inasmuch as no ground has been made out in the writ petition so as to warrant interference by this Court. Hence the writ petition is dismissed.

(Mohit Kumar Shah, J) S.Sb/- U