Rekha Kumari v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

C.W.J.C. No. 7924 of 2020 ====================================================== Rekha Kumari, wife of Pramod Kumar, resident of village-Makanpur, Post Office-Makanpur, Police Station-Warsaliganj, District-Nawada. ... ... Petitioner

Versus

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

2. The District Magistrate, Nawadah.

3. The District Programme Officer, Nawadah.

4. The Child Development Project Officer (C.D.P.O.), Warsaliganj, DistrictNawadah.

5. The Women Supervisor-cum-Member Secretary, Anganwari Sevika Selection Committee, Warsaliganj, District-Nawada.

6. Rupa Kumari, wife of Gariban Das, resident of village-Makanpur, Post Office-Makanpur, Block and Police Station-Warsaliganj, District-Nawada. .

.. ... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner :

Mr. Arun Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent State:

Mr. S.K.Mandal, SC-3 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH ORAL ORDER 3.

23-09-2020 The matter relates to selection of Anganbari Sevika for Ward No. 6, Centre No. 221 of Makanpur Panchayat in the district of Nawada. The petitioner is questioning selection of respondent No.6 on the ground that the testimonials submitted by her for the said selection are forged and fabricated. The petitioner was also an aspirant for the said post. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that had respondent No.6 been not selected, the petitioner would have been selected for the said post. This is not in dispute that there is remedy provided

under the guidelines issued by the I.C.D.S. Directorate, Social Welfare Department, Government of Bihar, as contained in Letter No. ICDS/40010/10-2017-286 dated 27.05.2019, governing selection of Anganbari Sevika/Sahayika, for resolution of nature of dispute, which the petitioner is raising, as contained in Clause 12 thereof. It has been argued, with reference to Annexure-4 of the writ application, that the petitioner has already approached the District Programme Officer, who is the competent authority under Clause 12 on 03.03.2020, but till date the same has not been disposed of. Considering the nature of relief, which the petitioner is seeking, this application is disposed of with a direction that let District Programme Officer examine whether such representation has been filed by the petitioner or not and, if the same is found to have been filed, it will be disposed of within a period of one month from the receipt/production of a copy of this order.

(Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J) Pawan/- U T