Manju Prakash v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6731 of 2008 ====================================================== Manju Prakash , wife of Sri Tuntun Rai, resident of village- Bathua Buzurg, Tole- Singhma, Via- Sarairanjan, P.S. Musari Gharari, DistrictSamastipur .... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. The Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna

3. The Commissioner, Mithila Pramandal, Darbhanga

4. The District Magistrate, Samastipur

5. The District Welfare Officer, Samastipur

6. The Block Development Officer, Sarairanjan, Samastipur

7. The Child Development Project Officer, Sarairanjan, Samastipur

8. The Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Raj Bathua Buzurg, Sarairanjan, Samastipur

9. The Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Raj, Bathua Buzurg, Sarairanjan, Samastipur

10. Pratima Rai, wife of Sri Arvind Kumar Rai, resident of villageBathua Buzurg, Tole-Singhma Block, Sarairanjan, P.S. Musari Gharari, District- Samastipur .... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Kumod Kr.Shrivastaw For the Respondent/s : Mr. AC to GP-4 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER ........................

25-03-2015 Heard Sri Kumod Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AC to GP-4. The petitioner, invoking writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article-226 of the Constitution of India, has prayed for directing the Respondents to enquire the selection process of Anganvari Sevika of Ward no.14 under Gram Panchayat Raj Bathua Buzurg, Block -Sarairanjan, DistrictSamastipur. It has been pleaded in the writ petition that

Patna High Court CWJC No.6731 of 2008 (3) dt.25-03-2015 2/3 Respondent no.10 though was carrying Mithila Milk Centre (Code-8003), she was considered for being appointed as Anganvari Sevika. Since Respondent no.10 was running Mithila Milk Centre, she was not entitled to be considered for appointment as Anganvari Sevika. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that after noticing irregularity, the petitioner filed a representation before the District Magistrate, Samastipur, however no action was taken on his representation. In view of Clause 8 of the guidelines with regard to selection of Anganvari Sevika/Assistant Sevika, 2006, if such dispute is raised, same can be examined by the concerned Collector/ District Magistrate provided a complaint is filed along with affidavit of the complainant.

On perusal of Annexure-2 to the writ petition, it is evident that no affidavit has been sworn. However, the Court proposes to dispose of the writ petition granting liberty to the petitioner to file appropriate complaint under Clause 8 of the aforesaid guidelines. If such complaint is filed within eight weeks from today, the District Magistrate, Samastipur is required to examine the same and pass appropriate order in accordance with law preferably within a period of three months from the date of filing of such complaint.

Patna High Court CWJC No.6731 of 2008 (3) dt.25-03-2015 3/3 With above observation and direction, the writ petition stands disposed of.

(Rakesh Kumar, J) NKS/- U