Sangeeta Kumari v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.870 of 2013 ===========================================================

1. Sangeeta Kumari W/O Anil Kumar R/O Village- Bajitpur PanchayatMahmanna, P.S.- Tikari, District- Gaya .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State Of Bihar through the Divisional Commissioner, Gaya

2. The Collector-Cum-District Magistrate, Gaya

3. The District Programme Officer, District- Gaya

4. The Block Development Officer, Block-Tikari, District- Gaya

5. The Child Development Project Officer, Tikari, District- Gaya

6. Kavita Krishna Moorti W/O Binay Kumar Singh R/O Village- Bajitpur, P.S.- Tikari, District- Gaya .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Krishna Narayan Jha For the Respondent/s : Mr. V. K. Singh, SC 5 =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 24-08-2015 Petitioner made a grievance that the merit list innitially drawn up by the respondents for selection as an Anganbari Sevika has been manipulated, if not interpolated, to defeat her claim for consideration. In this regard, Annexures 1 and 2 have been annexed. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit wherein they have taken a stand that the first merit list was given a go by because there were certain complaints made against the said exercise and on the basis of a fresh advertisement, a fresh merit list was prepared wherein the status of the petitioner was reduced at serial 4. Petitioner has unnecessarily tried to create confusion as if Annexures 1 and 2 are part of the same exercise when the State takes

Patna High Court CWJC No.870 of 2013 dt.24-08-2015 2/2 a stand that it is not.

Though unfortunately the State has not clearly indicated as to the reason why a second advertisement was notified but the reason for variance in the two merit lists is apparent now as the first merit list relates to the year 2005, which is Annexure- 1, and the second merit list relates to the year 2012. To that extent, the stand of the State that that is the cause of the fresh advertisement seems to be correct. Writ has no merit. It is dismissed.

(Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J) sk U