Rupa Kumari v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13713 of 2021 ====================================================== Rupa Kumari Wife of Amar Ram Resident of Village-Hichhara P.O. Bishunduttapur Panchayat Shahpur, P.S. Kanti, Dist.-Muzaffarpur. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through the District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur. 2.

The District Supply Officer, Muzaffarpur.

3.

The Sub Divisional Officer, West, Muzaffarpur. 4.

The District Co-operative Officer, Muzaffarpur. 5.

The Assistant Officer, The District Suraksha Koshang, Muzaffarpur. 6.

Rani Kumar Wife of Sanjay Kumar Resident of Village-Mirzapur P.O. Shisiya Panchayat Shahpur, P.S.,Kanti Dist-Muzaffarur. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Alok Kumar Alok For the Respondent/s :

Mr.S. Raza Ahmad (AAG5) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA KUMAR ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR) 13-10-2022 Heard Mr. Mritunjay Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Anisul Haque, for the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by grant of license to Private Respondent No. 6 and claims that notwithstanding the fact that Private Respondent No. 6 comes from a strong economic background with her father-in-law and her husband being government servant and Panchayat Rojgar Sewak respectively, her selection is bad in the eyes of law

Patna High Court CWJC No.13713 of 2021(5) dt.13-10-2022 2/2 and in her place, the petitioner ought to have been selected. A perusal of the counter affidavit indicates that Private Respondent No. 6 is older in age to the petitioner and the accusation of her father-in-law being in government service has been found to be incorrect. The father-in-law of Private Respondent No. 6 is a retired Halka Karamchari whereas the husband of Private Respondent No. 6 is a seasonal/contractual labourer.

There is no good ground for interfering with the decision taken by the District Selection Committee in granting license to Private Respondent No. 6. The petitioner has not made out any case for interference.

The petition is, thus, dismissed.

(Ashutosh Kumar, J) ( Jitendra Kumar, J) skm/- U