Patna High CourtCWJC/7851/2017dismissed

Musarrat Jahan v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2018-12-04Mr. Justice Madhuresh Prasad2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7851 of 2017 ====================================================== Musarrat Jahan, wife of Utim Miyan, resident of Village- Pathar Deyee, Police Station+Post Office- Ziradeyee, District- Siwan. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar, through the Principal Secretary, Department of Human Resources, Government of Bihar, Patna.

2. The District Magistrate, Siwan.

3. The District Education Officer, Siwan.

4. The District Programme Officer (Sarv Shiksha Abhiyan), Siwan.

5. The Block Education Officer, Hussainganj, District- Siwan.

6. The Head Master, Government Primary School, Pathar Deyee, BlockHussainganj, District- Siwan. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Amir Alam, Advocate For the State :

Mr. Kameshwar Kumar-Gp17 For BEPC :

Mr. Girijish Kumar, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD ORAL ORDER 04-12-2018 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the respondents.

The writ petition has been filed praying for quashing of the termination of the petitioner from the post of Bal Verg Didi, on which she claims to be working under Sarv Shiksha Abhiyan 2005.

Counsel for the State has filed a counter affidavit. It is their specific stand that Bal Verg Didi Centers were established under the Integrated Child Development Scheme (ICDS) and the scheme in question has since been stopped through out the State. All such persons who had been engaged for discharge of

Patna High Court CWJC No.7851 of 2017(2) dt.04-12-2018 2/2 duty under the scheme have been removed or disengaged. In view of the fact that the scheme has come to an end, the petitioner cannot claim any benefit as her existence was co-terminus with the scheme also. The specific averments made by the respondents in the counter affidavit have not been denied by filing rejoinder or reply.

There is no occasion for this Court to issue any direction in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The writ petition is dismissed.

(Madhuresh Prasad, J) SNkumar/- U