Sunita Devi v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11263 of 2013 ====================================================== Sunita Devi, W/o Anand Mohan, Resident of Village - Pakariya, P.S. - Paharpur, District - East Champaran .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State Of Bihar through Director, I.C.D.S

2. The District Programme Officer, East Champaran, Motihari

3. The District Magistrate, East Champaran

4. The Child Development Project Officer, Paharpur, East Champaran

5. Sunita Devi @ Kumari Sunita Panwar, W/o Binod Kumar, Panchayat - Eanarwa, Bhar, East Champaran .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr.

For the Respondent/s : Mr.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL ORAL ORDER 18-02-2016 Heard the counsel for the petitioner as well as the State.

The petitioner is the Aganwari Sevika which is guided by the guidelines issued by the government under Department of I.C.D.S. Upon re-organization of the Aganwari Centres, the petitioner was shifted to ward no. 13 but on the same centre. The Director, subsequently, issued another order calling for stay of the shifting of some of the centres in the manner indicated therein. In the light of the said order, the District Programme Officer passed a fresh order, (Annexure-11), staying the previous order of shifting of the petitioner to ward no. 13. The said order (Annexure-11) is under challenge.

The engagement/continuation or shifting of Sevika/

Patna High Court CWJC No.11263 of 2013 (2) dt.18-02-2016 2/2 Sahayika indisputably is as per the guidelines. No statutory right of the petitioner, as such, has been violated. Whether she is required to serve at a particular centre is purely administrative function of the respondent.

Considering as above, I am not inclined to interfere with those orders which have been challenged. Learned counsel for the petitioner referring to Annexure-10 states that the instructions itself provide an opportunity to the aggrieved to make representation. The petitioner's representation in this regard is pending before the concerned authority.

Dismissal of the writ application shall not preclude the petitioner from pursuing the representation which is filed in terms of Annexure-10 for consideration by the concerned respondents in accordance with law.

The application is dismissed.

(Kishore Kumar Mandal, J) kunal/- U