Manorama Devi v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Letters Patent Appeal No.907 of 2015 IN Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 3278 of 2015 =========================================================== Manorama Devi, Wife of Sukumar Poddar, resident of village- Bishanpur, P.S.- Mansahi, District- Katihar.

.... .... Appellant/s

Versus

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

2. The Director Integrated Child Development Service, Bihar, Patna.

3. The Divisional commissioner Purnea Division, Purnea.

4. The Joint Commissioner cum Secretary Regional Transport Authority Purnea Division Purnea.

5. The District Magistrate, Katihar.

6. The District Programme Officer, Katihar.

7. The Child Development Project officer, Mansahi, Katihar.

8. Darkasha Begam, D/o Jalilaur Rahman resident of Village- Kursela, P.O. and P.S.- Manashi, District- Katihar.

.... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Appellant/s : Mr. Binoy Kumar Singh For the Respondent/s : Mr. AJAY- GA12 =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE And HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPADHYAY ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) Date: 08-08-2017 In the matter of distribution of Poshak and other materials by manipulating the rate from Rs. 220/- as originally fixed to Rs. 250/-, action was taken against the appellant and the services of the appellant as Anganbari Sevika was terminated. Challenging the termination, an appeal was filed before the competent statutory authority namely the Appellate Authority which was decided against

Patna High Court LPA No.907 of 2015 dt.08-08-2017 2/2 the appellant. The matter travelled to the Writ Court and the Writ Court, after examining the issue found that the concurrent orders passed by the District Programme Officer and the Appellate Authority are based on due appreciation of the facts that came on record, there is no legal infirmity in doing so and dismissed the Writ Petition. In doing so, learned Writ Court has not committed any error warranting reconsideration.

Accordingly, finding no case for interference, the appeal stands dismissed.

(Rajendra Menon, CJ) (Anil Kumar Upadhyay, J) Shageer/- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 11/08/2017 Transmission Date NA