Sunita Kumari v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11305 of 2008 =========================================================== Sunita Kumari, wife of Surendra Chaudhary, resident of village - Dumri, P.S. - Govindpur, District - Nawada .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. Secretary, Department of Welfare, Government of Bihar, Patna

3. Director, Department of Welfare, Government of Bihar, Patna

4. District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Nawada

5. Deputy Development Commissioner, Nawada

6. District Welfare Officer, Nawada

7. Child Development Project Officer, Rohtas at Sasaram in the district of Nawada

8. Mukhiya, Dumri Gram Panchayat in the Block of Roh under District Nawada

9. Secretary, Dumri Gram Panchayat, in the Block of Roh under District of Nawada

10. Suman Devi, wife of Sri Ram Janam Paswan, resident of village - Dumri, P.S. - Govindpur, District - Nawada, presently working as Anganwari Sewika at Centre Dumri in village - Dumri, P.S. - Govindpur, District - Nawada .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. BIRENDRA KUMAR For the Respondent/s : Mr. (GP5) =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 14-08-2015 *************** 14.08.2015 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Respondent No.10 selection on the job of Anganbari Sevika has been assailed by the petitioner in the present writ application. She wants quashing of such a selection as well as a direction for her engagement as an Anganbari Sevika.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that since she was working as a Anganbari Sahayika, therefore, she had to be given weightage in selection of the post of Anganbari Sevika

Patna High Court CWJC No.11305 of 2008 dt.14-08-2015 2/2 The Court has gone through the guidelines.

There is no such provision of granting of weightage. The second attack against the selection of respondent no. 10 is that it has been done in violation of Clause- 3 (gha).

The respondents in their counter affidavit have taken a clear stand that since the name of the privaterespondent figures in the voter list, there is no dispute about her being a resident of the ward in question. Therefore, the requirements of 3 (gha) was not meant for respondent no. 10.

Before parting counsel for the petitioner submits that yet another point in favour of the petitioner is that petitioner had been deserted by her husband, therefore, there is provision for such woman. Such a point was never urged or pleaded earlier. Therefore, the Court will not allow the petitioner to raise a new ground.

Writ application has no merit, it is dismissed. (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.) U SKM/-