Patna High CourtCWJC/24759/2013dismissed

Bobby Kumari v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2018-04-03Mr. Justice S. Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.24759 of 2013 ====================================================== BOBBY KUMARI WIFE OF NAVIN KUMAR RESIDENT OF VILLAGE - KATUANA, P.O. - KATUANA, P.S. - KATRI SARAY, DISTRICT - NALANDA ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State Of Bihar

2. The Director, I.C.D.S., Bihar, Patna

3. The District Magistrate, Nalanda

4. The District Programme Officer, Nalanda

5. The Child Development Programme Officer, Kalarisarai, Nalanda

6. The Ward Member, Ward No. 12, Village + P.O. - Katuana, P.S. - Katrisaray, District - Nalanda

7. Guria Devi Wife Of Abhiranjan Kumar Resident Of Village + P.O. - Katauna, P.S. - Katrisaray, District - Nalanda ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Ms. Asha Kumari For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Dhurjati Kr Prasad ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 03-04-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

The grievance of the petitioner in this case is that respondent no. 7 has been wrongly selected and appointed on the post of Anganwari Sewika bearing Centre Code No. III, Village Katuana, P.O. Katuana, P.S. Katri Saray, DistrictNalanda. Under the guidelines issued in 2011 by ICDS, there is specific provision for challenging the selection of candidate appointed on the post of Anganwari Sewika before the District

Patna High Court CWJC No.24759 of 2013 dt.03-04-2018 2/2 Programme Officer, and for that purpose a complaint has to be filed challenging the appointment of respondent no. 7. However, without availing the remedy as provided under the guidelines of 2011 issued by the ICDS, petitioner has filed writ petition challenging the selection of respondent no. 7. The petitioner is at liberty to challenge the appointment of respondent no. 7 before the District Programme Officer, as provided in the guidelines issued by the ICDS and there is also provision of appeal against said order which lies before the Appellate Authority and after availing statutory remedies the extraordinary writ jurisdiction can be invoked. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court find that this petition is premature, and is accordingly dismissed.

(S. Kumar, J) ranjan/- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE N.A.

Uploading Date 10.04.2018 Transmission Date N.A.