Patna High CourtCWJC/1894/2015disposed

Sangeeta Kumari v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2017-02-08Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 1894 of 2015 ====================================================== Sangeeta Kumari wife of Munna Kumar Das, resident of village Rajopatti, P.O.Rajopatti , Ward No., P.S and District- Sitamarhi. .... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. Principal Secretary Social Welfare Department Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

3. Director I.C.D.S., Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

4. District Magistrate, Sitamarhi.

5. District Programme Officer, Sitamarhi, District- Sitamarhi.

6. Child Development Programming Officer, Dumra, Gramin DistrictSitamarhi.

7. Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat, Rajopatti, P.S and District - Sitamarhi.

8. Panchayat Secretary Gram Panchayat Rajopatti P.S. and DistrictSitamarhi.

9. Smt. Gyatri Kumari wife of Ganga Sah Resident of village- Rajopatti , P.S. and District- Sitamarhi.

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Arun Kumar For the Respondent/s : AC to Addl. Advocate General 4 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 2.

08-02-2017 Heard Sri Arun Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.C. to Addl. Advocate General - 4. The petitioner, who claims to be selected as Anganbari Sevika in Anganbari Centre No. 75 under Gram Panchayat Rajopatti (Sitamarhi), has approached this Court invoking its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, with a prayer to quash an order, which was passed long back on 22-06-2009, whereby the respondent no. 4/District Magistrate had cancelled the selection process, on the ground that

Patna High Court CWJC No.1894 of 2015 (2) dt.08-02-2017 2/2 centre in question was EBC Class populated, whereas, petitioner was selected on the ground of being a candidate of BC Category. Though, there was provision of appeal against the order of the District Magistrate, the petitioner did not avail the remedy and after about five years from the date of order, she has filed the present writ petition.

In view of the fact that the order impugned was passed in the year 2009 and direction was issued for fresh selection process after cancelling the selection of the petitioner, there is no reason to pass any favourable order. The writ petition stands disposed of.

(Rakesh Kumar, J.) Anay U