Kusum Kumari @ Kusum Devi v. The State Of Bihar Through Principal Secretary, Welfare Department, Government Of Bihar, Patna And

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5916 of 2018 ====================================================== Kusum Kumari @ Kusum Devi Wife of Raj Kumar Gupta Resident of Village Karaundi, P.S. Natwar, Block Dinara, District Rohtas. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State Of Bihar Through Principal Secretary, Welfare Department, Government Of Bihar, Patna 2.

Director, Integrated Child Development Scheme, Welfare Department, Bihar, Patna.

3.

District Magistrate, Rohtas at Sasaram.

4.

District Programme Officer ICDS, Rohtas at Sasaram. 5.

Child Development Project Officer, Dinara, Rohtas. 6.

Selection Committee, Angan Wari Sevika through its President, Saraon Gram Panchayat, P.S. Natwar, D 7.

Reena Kumar Wife of Vikash Kumar Resident of Village Karaundi, P.S. Natwar, Block Dinara, District Rohtas.

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Jitendra Prasad Singh, Advocate Mr. Rajeev Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Mr.Prashant Pratap, GP-2 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 27-09-2023 Heard the parties.

The prayer is for issuance of an appropriate writ or writs setting aside the order dated 30.05.2017 passed by the District Magistrate, Rohtas in Angan Wari Sevika Appeal No. 02 of 2015 by which appeal preferred by the petitioner hasbeen rejected and further respondent-authorities be directed to select/appoint the petitioner as Angan Wari Sevika at Karaundi Centre No. 2 situated in village Karaundi, P.S. Natwar within the district of Rohtas in the category of backward class without

Patna High Court CWJC No.5916 of 2018(3) dt.27-09-2023 2/2 further delay and/or to grant any other relief/reliefs for which the petitioner is legally entitled in the facts and circumstances of the case.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Collector, Rohtas at Sasaram had given a re-look in the matter and reasoned order has been passed.

Learned State counsel has rightly pointed out that the center 1 or 2 does not matter in this case as subsequently fresh selection process was initiated and the selection was ultimately done in 2016 itself in which the respondent no.7 has been selected.

As such her claim that due to wrong center number her case was not considered is unfounded.

In that view of the matter, no case is made out. The petitioner will have opportunities in the future selection process.

The writ petition stands disposed of.

(Rajiv Roy, J) Ravi/- U