Kanchan Kumari v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No 9217 of 2015 ====================================================== Kanchan Kumari, W/o Sri Upendra Kumar, R/o Village + Post - Bairka, P.S. Atri, District - Gaya.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State Of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Bihar, Patna 2.

The Commissioner, Magadh Division, Gaya.

3.

The District Magistrate Cum Collector Gaya.

4.

The Deputy Director, Welfare, Magadh Division. 5.

The District Programme Officer, Gaya.

6.

The Child Development Project Officer Atri, Gaya ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr Ranjeet Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Mr Upendra Pratap Singh, AC to SC IV ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 25-09-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent-State.

2 On account of non-distribution of Take Home Ration, the selection of the petitioner as Angan Bari Sevika has been cancelled by order of the District Magistrate dated 02.08.2008. The same has been challenged by the instant proceedings filed in the year, 2015, i e, seven years after cancellation of the petitioner's selection. There is no averment in the writ petition as to why the writ petition has been filed after seven years. It appears that the

Patna High Court CWJC No.9217 of 2015 dt.25-09-2019 2/2 petitioner has become wiser by virtue of certain orders passed in some other writ proceedings in the year, 2011 and 2013. 3 Status of the petitioner is that of an Agent of the Government disseminating social welfare measures for the benefit of children and female of the locality cannot be countenanced. Petitioner is not a Government servant. Cancellation of selection is on account of non-distribution of Take Home Ration, that also way back in the year, 2008. There is no averment as to whether for seven years after issuance of the order dated 02.08.2008, any one had been selected in place of the petitioner. 4 Writ petition is clearly barred by delay and laches. Same is, accordingly, dismissed.

(Madhuresh Prasad, J) M.E.H./- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 27.09.2019 Transmission Date NA