Sumitra Kumari v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8446 of 2014 ====================================================== Sumitra Kumari Wife of Sri Suresh Prasad Rai resident of village - Muja, P.S. Saraiya, District - Muzaffarpur.

.... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

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

3. The District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur.

4. The District Development Commissioner, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur.

5. The District Welfare Officer, Madhubani.

6. The District Programme Officer, Muzaffarpur.

7. The Block Development Officer, Saraiya, District - Muzaffarpur.

8. The Child Development Project Officer, Saraiya, District - Muzaffarpur.

9. The Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Raj Rampur Vishwanath, Block - Saraiya, District - Muzaffarpur.

10. The Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Raj Rampur Vishwanath, Block - Saraiya, District - Muzaffarpur.

11. Smt. Kamni Devi Wife of Sri Suresh Thakur resident of village - Repura, Rampur Vishwanath , P.O. - Jaitpur, Block - Saraiya, District - Muzaffarpur.

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shashi Bhushan Singh For the Respondent/s : Mr. Ga3- Vinay Kirti Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI ORAL ORDER 06-09-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State.

This Court does not find any infirmity in the order of the District Programme Officer (I.C.D.S.) dated 8.2.2014, which is under challenge in the present writ application as Annexure 8. Since the selection of the selected candidate as Anganwari Sevika has been set aside, for the reasons emerging from the impugned order, the petitioner has filed the writ

Patna High Court CWJC No.8446 of 2014 (2) dt.06-09-2016 application for quashing a part of the observation which refuses to appoint the petitioner as Anganwari Sevika, on the ground that the selected candidate selection was found to be illegal. Reasons have been given. Even if those reasons are ignored for the time being, the vacancy created by virtue of removal of previous selected candidate, which selection was carried out in the year 2012, would be required to be re-advertised and the eligible candidates must have the opportunity for consideration afresh. The match cannot be fixed between the petitioner and outgoing incumbent.

Writ application is dismissed.

(Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J) Surendra/- U