Samina Khatun v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8632 of 2022 ====================================================== Samina Khatun Wife of Md. Arif Resident of Village- Feku Tola, Ward No.- 04, P.S.- Pirpainty, District- Bhagalpur.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar.

2.

Director, Integral Child Development Scheme (ICDS), Social Welfare Department, Bihar, Patna.

3.

Divisional Commissioner, Bhagalpur.

4.

District Magistrate, Bhagalpur.

5.

District Programme Officer (ICDS), Bhagalpur. 6.

Child Development Programme Officer Pirpainty, Bhagalpur. 7.

Lady Observer Bal Vikash Pariyojna, Pirpainty, Bhagalpur. 8.

Ward Member-cum-Chairman Selection Committee of Anganbari Sevika/Sahayika, Ward No.- 04, Gram Panchayat- Srimatpur Hujurnagar, Block- Pirpainty, District- Bhagalpur.

9.

Shahzadi Khatoon Wife of Md. Sharbar Resident of Feku Tola, Ward No.- 04, P.S.- Pirpainty, District- Bhagalpur.

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Manoj Kumar Jha, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Mr.Gyan Prakash Ojha (Ga7) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH ORAL ORDER 13-02-2024 The present writ petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs:- "(a) For issuance of writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the order dated 19/05/2022 (Annexure- 15) passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Bhagalpur in Misc (Anganbari) Revision Case No.- 10/2020-21 whereby and whereunder order dated 26/08/2020 (Annexure-12) and 16/03/2021

Patna High Court CWJC No.8632 of 2022(2) dt.13-02-2024 2/2 (Annexure 13) passed by the District Programme Officer, Bhagalpur in Misc.

(Anganbari) Case No.- 51/2019-20 were setaside by which claim of the private respondent no.- 9 had been turned down and selection of the petitioner on the post of Anganbari Sevika had been affirmed.

(b) For issuance of further writs, orders and directions in the nature of Mandamus for commanding and directing the respondent authorities to stay the operation of the impugned order (Annexure-15) till the disposal of the present writ application."

2.

At the outset, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks not to press the present writ petition, however, seeks liberty on behalf of the petitioner to avail such other alternative remedies as are otherwise available under the law. Liberty, so sought, is granted.

3.

The writ petition stands dismissed as not pressed.

(Mohit Kumar Shah, J) kanchan/- U