Poonam Bharti v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Letters Patent Appeal No.189 of 2014 Arising out of Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 2741 of 2011 =========================================================== Poonam Bharti, W/O Sri Surendra Kumar Yadav, Resident Of Village- Jalsain Tola, Bhagwatipur, P.S.- Rudrapur, District- Madhubani .... .... Appellant/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar Through Its Secretary, Welfare Department, Government Of Bihar, Patna

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

3. The Commissioner, Darbhanga Divisional, Darbhanga Null Null

4. The District Magistrate, Madhubani

5. The District Programme Officer, Madhubani

6. The Sub Divisional Officer, Jhanjharpur, District- Madhubani

7. The Block Development Officer, Andhratharhi, District- Madhubani

8. The Child Development Project Officer, Block- Andhratharhi, DistrictMadhubani

9. The Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Raj Jalsain, Block- Andhratharhi, DistrictMadhubani

10. The Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Raj, Jalsain, Block- Andhratharhi, District- Madhubani .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Appellant/s : Mr. LAKSHMINDRA KUMAR YADAV For the Respondent/s : Mr. MAYANK RUKHAIYAR, AC to GA 1 =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA) Date: 29-04-2016 The order dated 9.9.2013 passed by the learned Single Bench passed in CWJC No. 2741 of 2011 is the subject matter in the present Letters Patent Appeal. By the said order, the claim of the petitioner for appointment as Anganwari Sevika was not accepted. The appellant was placed at sl.no.3 in the merit list as the

Patna High Court LPA No.189 of 2014 dt.29-04-2016 2/2 candidate selected for appointment as Anganwari Sevika. The candidates at sl.no.1 and 2 of the merit list were appointed but their appointments were cancelled as the mark-sheets of both the candidates were found to be forged. The appellant claimed that as the candidate next in the merit list she should be appointed. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition on the ground that once the appointment has been made, the panel ceases to exist. Consequent vacancy has to be filled up subsequently by initiating fresh process of selection.

We do not find any error in the order of the learned Single Judge. Consequently, we do not find any ground to interfere in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The appeal is dismissed.

(Hemant Gupta, J) (Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J) mrl U