Geeta Kumari @ Geeta Devi v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11094 of 2023 ====================================================== 1.
Geeta Kumari @ Geeta Devi wife of Arvind Kumar, Resident of VillageJiyan Khurd, P.S. Karja, District- Muzaffarpur. 2.
Chandrakala Devi, wife of Mahendra Prasad Gupta, Resident of VillageMushalmani Chak, P.O Mustafapur, P.S- Minapur, District- Muzaffarpur. 3.
Girija Devi, wife of Saroj Kumar Yadav, Resident of Village- Harsher, P.SSiwaipatti, District- Muzaffarpur. 4.
Prem Shilla Devi, wife of Subhash Chandra, Resident of Village and PO Pakari, Basarat, P.S Sahebganj, District- Muzaffarpur. 5.
Rambha Devi, wife of Shiv Chandra Yadav, Resident of Village- Darhoul, P.O- Bandhpura, PS-Katra, District- Muzaffarpur. 6.
Meera Devi, wife of Ashok Kumar Gupta, Resident of Village- Dharmpur Mangaiya, P.S-Siwaipatti, District- Muzaffarpur. 7.
Renu Kumari, wife of Nand Kishore Sah, Resident of Village- Dharampur, P.S- Siwaipatti, District- Muzaffarpur.
8.
Meena Devi, wife of Ganesh Prasad Ray, Resident of Village- Bishunpur Pandey, P.S-Minapur, District- Muzaffarpur.
9.
Renu Devi, wife of Late Dileep Chaudhary, Resident of VillageShivadaspur, P.S- Katra, District- Muzaffarpur. 10.
Chanda Devi, wife of Ram Rashila Ray, Resident of Village- Shivadaspur, P.S-Katra, District- Muzaffarpur.
11.
Parwati Devi @ Parwati Kumari wife of Pranay Kumar Resident of villagePatory, P.S. -Aurai, District Muraffarpur. 12.
Anita Kumari, wife of Arjun Sharma Resident of Village Jagdishpur, P.S. -Sahebganj, District- Muzaffarpur.
13.
Sakila Bano, wife of Md. Rustam Resident of village Dharipatte, P.S.- Karja, District Muzaffarpur.
14.
Malti Gupta, Wife of Ragunath Prasad Gupta Resident of village- Sawaipatti P.S- Meenapur, District Muzaffarpur.
15.
Raj Kumari, wife of Parthu Deyal Rai, Resident of village Marwan P.S.- Karja, District Muzaffarpur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Government of Bihar.
2.
The Director, (Administration)Cum-Additional Secretary, Social Welfare, Government of Bihar.
3.
The Director, Integrated Child Development Scheme, Government of Bihar, Patna.
4.
The Commissioner Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur. 5.
The District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur.
Patna High Court CWJC No.11094 of 2023(2) dt.18-12-2023 2/3 6.
District Program Officer, Muzaffarpur.
7.
The Child Development Project Officer, Minapur, Muzaffarpur. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Akashdeep, Advocate Mr.Shyameshwar Kumar Singh, Advocate Ms.Kanchan Kumari, Advocate For the Respondent/s :
Mr.Md. Raisul Haque ( Sc 10 ) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH ORAL ORDER 18-12-2023
1. The present writ petition has been filed seeking the following relief(s):- "1. That the present writ application is being filed for issuance of an appropriate Writ/ Order or Direction, in the nature of writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ/ order or direction, for (Series) quashing the Notices (Annexure 13) issued on different dates, for termination of the services of the Petitioners solely on the ground that the qualification of "Vidya Vinodini" granted by Prayag Mahila Vidhyapeeth, Allahabad, is not an equivalent qualification for appointment as Anganbari Sevika; The Petitioners further pray for a consequential writ/ Order or Direction, in the nature of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ/ order or direction, commanding the respondents not to take any coercive steps against the petitioners who are working as Anganbadi Sevika since 1998 to 2004, in the District of Muzaffarpur, as the Degree in question has been obtained by the Petitioners much prior
Patna High Court CWJC No.11094 of 2023(2) dt.18-12-2023 3/3 to the Order dated 12.03.2018 passed in CWJC No.9004 of 2010 and has been duly recognized as Equivalent qualification for the purpose of appointment to Government Service as well as for higher education within the State of Bihar."
2. At the outset, the learned counsel for the petitioners seeks not to press the present writ petition, however, seeks liberty on behalf of the petitioners to avail such other alternative remedies, as are otherwise available under the law, for redressal of their aforesaid grievances. Liberty so sought is granted.
3. The writ petition stands dismissed as not pressed. (Mohit Kumar Shah, J) Saurav/- U