Patna High CourtCWJC/18320/2008dismissed

Mostt.Kusum Kumari @Kusum Devi v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2017-06-29Mr. Justice Vikash Jain2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18320 of 2008 =========================================================== Mostt. Kusum Kumari @ Kusum Devi, daughter of late Mithila Saran Singh, wife of late Nawal Kishore Singh, resident of Village- Chipura Khurd, Police StationGaurichak, District- Patna. .... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. The District Magistrate, Patna.

3. The Sub-Divisional Officer Masauri, Patna.

4. The District Project Officer, Zila Pariyojna Padadhikari, Patna.

5. The Child Development Project Officer, Punpun, Patna.

6. The Panchayat Secretary, Gram panchayat, Chipura Khurd, Sampat Chak, Patna.

7. The Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Chipura Khurd, Sampat Chak, Patna.

8. Jaishree Kumari, wife of Prabhas Kumar Sinha, resident of Village- Chipura Khurd, Police Station- Gaurichak, District- Patna. .... .... Respondents =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner : Mr. Siya Ram Shahi Miss. Namrata Singh, Advocates.

For the Respondents : Mr. Kinkar Kumar, Advocate. =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 29-06-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The present writ petition has been filed for a direction to the respondents to appoint the petitioner as Anganwari Sevika, Chipura Khurd Panchayat.

3. At the very outset, learned counsel for the respondents invites attention to the counter affidavit which discloses that pursuant to the order passed in C.W.J.C. No. 6470 of 2008 preferred by the private respondent no. 8, the matter was considered by the District

Patna High Court CWJC No.18320 of 2008 dt.29-06-2017 2/2 Magistrate and after hearing the parties including the petitioner, the earlier order cancelling the selection of the respondent no. 8 was set aside. It is further submitted that the said order of the District Magistrate dated 22.10.2009 (Annexure-R2-5/A) has not been challenged by the petitioner and has thus attained finality.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not filed any rejoinder controverting the facts narrated in the counter affidavit.

5. Considering that the appointment of Anganwari Sevika for the subject Center has already been decided by the District Magistrate in his order dated 22.10.2009 against the petitioner and in favour of respondent no. 8, which order has not been challenged by the petitioner, this Court finds no reason to interfere in the matter as no infirmity in the said order has been pointed out.

6. The writ petition accordingly stands dismissed. (Vikash Jain, J) Md. Ibrarul/BT AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE N.A.

Uploading Date 30.06.2017.

Transmission Date N.A.