Manju Kumari, v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16331 of 2021 ====================================================== Manju Kumari, Wife of Ram Ekbal Mahto, Resident of Village-Lal Dashi, Ward No. 16, P.O.-Basbitta, P.S.-Majorganj, Distt.-Sitamarhi. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through the Director, I.C.D.S. BIhar, Patna. 2.

The Distt. Magistrate, Sitamarhi.

3.

The Distt. Programme Officer, Sitamarhi.

4.

The Child Development Officer, Majorganj, Distt.-Sitamarhi. 5.

The Block Development Officer, Majorganj, Distt.-Sitamarhi. 6.

The Ladies Supervisor, Block-Majorganj.

7.

Priyanka Kumari, Wife of Pramod Mahto, Resident of Village-Lal Dashi, Ward No. 16, P.O.-Basbitta, P.S.-Majorganj, Distt.-Sitamarhi. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Devendra Kumar, Adv.

For the Respondent/s :

Mr.Lalit Kishore ( AG ) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH ORAL ORDER 24-01-2024

1. The present writ petition has been filed seeking the following relief(s):- "1.i) For issuance of writ in nature of Mandamus and directing and commanding the Respondent authorities for setting aside the order dt 15.06.2021 passed by the Dist. Magistrate, Sitamarhi in Appeal case no. 55/2016 and also order dt. 01.08.2016 passed by the Dist. Programme Officer, Sitamarhi in Anganwari case no.55/2015 respectively. Whereby and whereunder the respondent no.7 produced B.A certificate. In which the private respondent could not pass B.A Part-ll in paper-III examination. The respondents no.7 could not pass she is promoted

Patna High Court CWJC No.16331 of 2021(2) dt.24-01-2024 2/2 neither gave examination. The authority could not have ascertained that the respondent no.7 pass or not in spite of that the respondents has rejected the case of Anganwari Sevika.

ii) For further direction to the respondent's authority to again issue the selection letter in favour of the petitioner and further prayed that cancelled the selection letter in memo no.31 dt. 29.01.2015 has issued by the C.D.P.O, Majorganj. In which the concern authority would not follows the rules and regulations of the Anganwari Sevika."

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, for redressal of her aforesaid grievances. Liberty so sought is granted.

3. The writ petition stands dismissed as not pressed. (Mohit Kumar Shah, J) sonal/- U