Kanti Kumari v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1751 of 2009 ====================================================== Kanti Kumari, wife of Rakesh Kumar Sah, resident of Village- Gazi Karma, Post-Office- Vishambharpur, Police-Sate Kashma, District- Aurangabad. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar, through the Secretary, Department of Welfare, Government of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna.

2. The Commissioner, Magadh Division, Gaya.

3. The District Magistrate (D.M.) -cum- Collector, Aurangabad.

4. The S.D.O. (Sadar), Aurangabad.

5. The Block Development Officer, Rafiganj, Gaurangabad.

6. The Child Development Project Officer (C.D.P.O.), Rafiganj, Aurangabad.

7. The Mukhiaya, Gram Panchayat, Bhaduki Kala, Police StationKashma, District- Aurangabad.

8. The Secretary of Gram Panchayat Bhaduki Kala, P.S. Kashama, District- Aurangabad.

9. Prabha Kumari, wife of Sheo Narayan Sao, resident of Village- Karma Hussain, Police Station- Kashma, P.O.- Bishambharpur, DistrictAurangabad.

10. Hussain Ara Khatoon, wife of Md. Hafiz Ahmad, resident of VillageKarma Hussain, P.O.- Vishambharpur, P.S.- Kashma, DistrictAurangabad. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : None.

For the Respondent/s : Kamlesh Kishore, AC to SC-12 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL ORDER 21-11-2016 None appears on behalf of the petitioner. Counsel for the State is present.

Apparently this matter has been rendered infructuous for the order put to challenge was passed in the year 2008 by the District Magistrate -cum- Collector, Aurangabad and by the said order the District Magistrate, Aurangabad while quashing the selection of petitioner as Anganwari Sevika, has directed for

Patna High Court CWJC No.1751 of 2009 (3) dt.21-11-2016 initiating and completing the selection process afresh. Obviously a lapse of seven years since the order passed, the selection process must have been completed.

No cause for indulgence is made out in the circumstances discussed above.

The writ petition is disposed of.

(Jyoti Saran, J) SKPathak/- U