Vibha Kumari @ Vibha Devi v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.15077 of 2021 ====================================================== Vibha Kumari @ Vibha Devi W/o Amit Kumar, resident of Village- Jadopur Shukl, Ward No. 2, Post and P.S.- Jadopur, District- Gopalganj. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Social Welfare Director Integrated Child Development Service Bihar, Patna. 2.

The Deputy Director, I.C.D.S., Patna.

3.

The Collector cum District Magistrate, Gopalganj. 4.

The District Program Officer, Gopalganj.

5.

The Child Development Officer, ............, District- Gopalganj. 6.

The Lady Supervisor cum Secretary, ..........., District- Gopalganj. 7.

Ripu Kumari W/o Deepak Kumar Resident of Village- Jadopur Shukl, Ward No.2, P.S. and Post- Jadopur, District- Gopalganj. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Ranjan Kumar Dubey, Advocate Mr. Shashank Kashyap, Advocate Mr. Kumar Gaurav, Advocate For the State :

Mr.Gyan Prakash Ojha (Ga7) Ms. Sanghmitra Ghose, AC to GA-7 For the respondent no.7 :

Mr. Vikash Kumar Shukla, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH ORAL ORDER 04-01-2024 The present writ petition has been filed seeking the following relief:- "(i) For issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 08.07.2021 passed by respondent no.3 in Anganbari Appeal Case No. 25/2018 by which he has affirmed the order dated 22.05.2017 passed by District Programm Officer, Gopalganj in Anganbari Appeal No.46/2018.

Patna High Court CWJC No.15077 of 2021(2) dt.04-01-2024 2/2 ii) For issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 22.05.2018 passed by District Programm Officer, Gopalganj in Anganbari Appeal No.46/2018 by which appeal filed by petitioner challenging the selection of respondent no. 7 as Anganbari Sevika in no. 2 has been rejected."

2.

At the outset, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks not to press the present writ petition, however, seeks liberty on behalf of the petitioner to avail such other alternative remedies as are otherwise available under the law. Liberty, so sought, is granted.

3.

The writ petition stands dismissed as not pressed.

(Mohit Kumar Shah, J) kanchan/- U