Ranju Kumari v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No 829 of 2015 =========================================================== Ranju Kumari W/o Sri Satish Kumar, Ex- Anganwari Sewika, Centre No.- 27, Prathmik Vidyalaya, Chakdiwan, Sheikhpura, R/o Mohalla- Chakdiwan, P.O.- Sheikhpura, District- Sheikhpura .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Commissioner, Munger

2. The Divisional Commissioners, Munger.

3. The District Magistrate, Sheikhpura

4. District Programme Officer, Sheikhpura, District- Sheikhpura .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== For the Petitioner/s : Mr Bal Bhushan Choudhary, Advocate For the S t a t e : Mr Chitranjan Sinha, PAAG II with Ms Ratna Kumari, AC to PAAG II =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 02-04-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent-State.

2 On the allegation that the petitioner, being the Angan Bari Sevika, was not running the Centre at the notified place that is at Primary School, Chakdiwan and she was running the Centre in the Temple of a private person and some other allegations, show cause was issued to the petitioner. In her reply, which is Annexure 3 dated 17.01.2012, the petitioner has admitted the same but has tried to explain the same that since there was insufficient space at the notified place that is within the Primary School, Chakdiwan, she was compelled to run the Centre from the Temple and as soon as she obtains proper place, she will shift the Centre there.

Patna High Court CWJC No.829 of 2015 dt.02-04-2018 2/2 3 In view of the admitted position, the allegation made against the petitioner stands substantiated. Accordingly, on the said allegation, the petitioner has been removed as Angan Bari Sewika from Centre No 27 of Nagar Parishad, Sheikhpura. 4 It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that opportunity of hearing was not given after the petitioner had submitted her show cause and, as such, the impugned order is unsustainable. However, the admitted position (Annexure 3) is not disputed or denied by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 5 In view of the admitted position that the Angan Bari Centre was not being run at the notified place and was being run in the temple of a private person, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the order dated 10.12.

2014 of the Divisional Commissioner, Munger in the revision case as also the order passed by the appellate authority and the order of the District Programme Officer dated 13.02.2012 by which the petitioner's selection as Angan Bari Sevika for the said Centre has been cancelled.

6 The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. (Madhuresh Prasad, J) M.E.H./- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 02.04.2018 Transmission Date NA