Minakshi Kumari v. The State Of Bihar And ORS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No 3564 of 2015 =========================================================== Minakshi Kumari W/o Sri Bipin Kumar Singh R/o Village Maharo Gorala, P.S. Islampur, District Nalanda .... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Director, Social Welfare, Government of Bihar, Patna
3. Deputy Director, Welfare, Patna Division, Patna.
4. Collector, Nalanda.
5. District Programme, Officer, Nalanda.
6. Child Development Project Officer, Islampur, Nalanda
7. Panchayat Sachiv, Gram Panchayat Raj Ichhosh , P.S. Islampur, Dist - Nalanda.
8. Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Raj Ichhosh, P.S. Islampur, Dist- Nalanda.
9. Khushbu Kumari W/o Sushil Kumar R/o village Kul , P.O+ P.S.+ Dist.- Nalanda. .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rewti Kant Raman For the Respondent/s : Mr. MANIKANT MISHRA =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 31-08-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. None appears for the State.
2 On account of her absence from the Centre in question on 24.01.2012 and 25.01.2012, the petitioner's selection as Angan Bari Sevika has been cancelled.
3 The petitioner has tried to justify her absence by giving explanation that due to some nuisance, she was forced to close the Centre on 24.01.2012. As regards 25.01.2012, she has stated that she had gone to collect the children. Petitioner's counsel has also
Patna High Court CWJC No.3564 of 2015 dt.31-08-2018 2/2 relied upon an affidavit dated 26.07.2013 wherein said fact has been supported by some of the villagers including the parents of the children. The affidavit is of a date about one and half years after the two dates on which centre was found closed during inspection. 4 The petitioner has not been able to produce any contemporaneous chit of paper to show that due intimation was given to any Authority regarding her not being present at the Centre. It is on this ground that the selection has been cancelled. 5 In view of the aforesaid consideration, this Court would find that the petitioner has admitted her absence on 24.01.2012 and 25.01.2012 though she has tried to explain her absence. No application or intimation has been sent to the authorities on two dates. It is a clear case of repeated unauthorized absence from the Anganbari Centre which has been set up for welfare of the children. 6 No ground is made out for interference. This application is dismissed.
(Madhuresh Prasad, J) M.E.H./- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 05.09.2018 Transmission Date NA