Savita Kumari v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9738 of 2011 ====================================================== Savita Kumari W/O Yogesh Chaudhary R/O Village-Maihariya, Ward No.- 2 of the Bir Chhapara Panchayat, Block+P.S.- Piprakothi, Distt.- East Champaran .... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. The Collector of East Champaran

3. District Programme Officer, East Champaran at Motihari

4. Block Development Officer at Piparakothi, East Champaran

5. The C.D.P.O.- Piparakothi Under District- East Champaran .... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Dr. Anshuman, SC-14 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 21-01-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri ( Dr.) Anshuman, learned SC-14.

The petitioner, claiming to be resident of villageMaihariya, Ward no.2 of Bir Chhapara Panchayat, Block and P.S. Piprakothi in the district -East Champaran, has approached this Court, invoking its writ jurisdiction, with a prayer to direct the Respondents to consider her candidature in respect of Anganbari Sevika of Panchayat-Bir Chhapara under Ward no.2 and also examine as to why her name was transferred from Ward no.2 to Ward No.1. A plea has been taken that an advertisement was made regarding fulfilling the post of Sevika and Sahayika in different Wards. The petitioner at the relevant time, on the basis of

Patna High Court CWJC No.9738 of 2011 (7) dt.21-01-2016 2/3 residential certificate applied for the post. However, the Child Development Project Officer subsequently concluded that the petitioner was resident of Ward no.1.

According to learned counsel for the petitioner, till date the post in Ward no.2, as per advertisement, has not been filled up. In this case, a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of Respondent nos. 3 and 5 and in paragraph-7, a specific stand has been taken that on receipt of a complaint, the matter was examined regarding the claim of the petitioner in respect of her residence at Ward no.2. The matter was inquired and it was found that her name was lying in the voter list of Ward no.1, which was published continuously since 2009, 2010 and 2011. Of course, the stand of the Respondent/ State has been disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner, the Court is of the Opinion that such dispute may not be resolved by this Court while exercising its writ jurisdiction.

If so advised, the petitioner may file a detailed representation before the Respondent no.2/Collector, East Champaran regarding her claim of resident of Ward no.2. If such representation is filed within a period of eight weeks from today, the Respondent no.2 /the Collector, East Champaran may examine the matter in detail and decide the issue as to whether the petitioner belongs to Ward no. 1 or Ward No.

Patna High Court CWJC No.9738 of 2011 (7) dt.21-01-2016 3/3 Bir Chhapara Panchayat, Block+P.S.- Piprakothi, East Champaran. Such decision may be taken within a period of three months from the date of filing of such representation.

With above observation and direction, the writ petition stands disposed of.

(Rakesh Kumar, J) NKS/- U