Nita Kumari v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1409 of 2018 ====================================================== Nita Kumari wife of Ajit Kumar resident of Gram Panchayat Khajuraha Ward no. 5 P.S. and Block Sonbarsa, District Saharsa. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State Of Bihar 2.

The Director, I.C.D.S. Patna, Bihar.

3.

The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Social Welfare, Government of Bih 4.

The Director, I.C.D.S. of Directorate Government of Bihar, Patna. 5.

The Deputy Director, Welfare, Koshi Division, Saharsa. 6.

The Commissioner, Koshi Division, Saharsa.

7.

The District Magistrate, Saharsa.

8.

The Sub-Divisional Officer, Saharsa.

9.

The District Programme Officer, Saharsa.

10.

The Child Development Project Officer, Sonbarsa, District - Saharsa. 11.

The Block Development Officer, Sonbarsa , District Saharsa. 12.

The Mukhiya Gram Panchayat Khajuraha P.S. Sonbarsa, District Saharsa. 13.

The Ward Member Ward no. 5 Panchatat Khajuraha P.S. Sonbarsa, District Saharsa.

14.

Smt. Pampa Kumar wife of Bipin Mandal resident of Gram Panchayat Khajuraha Tola Baghail Ward No. 5, P.S. Sonbarsa, District Saharsa. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Kumar Vishoka Nand, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Md.Raishul Haque, SC 10 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 12-09-2023 Heard Mr. Kumar Vishoka Nand, learned Counsel for the petitioner and the State as also learned Counsel appearing for respondent no. 14.

2. The case of the petitioner is that though she was validly selected, the respondent no. 14 on the basis of

Patna High Court CWJC No.1409 of 2018(5) dt.12-09-2023 2/2 documents created which resulted into her removal that has been stamped by in appeal also.

3. It is his submission that even the respondent no. 14 is continuing on the forged documents and the same can be proved at an appropriate stage.

4. So far as the petitioner is concerned, this Court has gone through the appellate order and is convinced, no interference is required. Regarding respondent no. 14, it is always open to any one, much less the petitioner, to approach the appropriate authority, if she has reason to believe that the lady is continuing on the post based on the documents which are not valid.

5. The writ petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid observations.

(Rajiv Roy, J) Neha/- U