Patna High CourtCWJC/14982/2010dismissed

Smt.Rambha Kumari v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2017-05-10Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14982 of 2010 ====================================================== Smt.Rambha Kumari W/O Rajesh Singh R/O Village Bhuapur, P.O.Kara, P.S.Jamhore, Block-Barun, Distt-Aurangabad .... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. District Magistrate Aurangabad

3. Sub-Divisional Officer, Aurangabad

4. District Programme Officer, Aurangabad

5. Child Development Programme Officer, Barun, Aurangabad

6. Mukhiya Gram Panchayat Dhangain, P.S.Jamhore, Distt-Aurangabad

7. Pramila Devi W/O Sachchidanand Paswan R/O Bhuapur, P.S.Jamhore, Distt-Aurangabad .... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. B.J.Ojha For the Respondent/s : Mr. AC to GA-7 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 10-05-2017 Heard Sri Bachanjee Ojha, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AC to Govt. Advocate no.7. The petitioner has approached this Court, invoking its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, with a prayer to quash a letter dated 03.04.2010 issued by the District Programme Officer, Aurangabad, by which the selection of Respondent no.7 as Anganbari Sevika was found to be genuine and legal.

Learned counsel for the petitioner tried to persuade the Court that after selection of Respondent no.7, the petitioner had filed a complaint to show that Respondent no.7 was not

Patna High Court CWJC No.14982 of 2010 (3) dt.10-05-2017 2/2 eligible for being selected as Anganbari Sevika. An enquiry was conducted and firstly recommendation was made by the Sub Divisional Officer, Aurangabad for cancellation of selection of Respondent no.7 and for initiating fresh selection process, but no action was taken and finally by the impugned order, the selection of Respondent no.7 has been declared as valid. In the writ petition, nothing has been indicated as to whether the petitioner had participated in the selection process or regarding infringement of any of his right. In absence of such plea, the writ petition may not be entertained.

In absence of infringement of any right of the petitioner, there is no reason to entertain the present writ petition. The writ petition stands dismissed.

(Rakesh Kumar, J) NKS/- U