Ranjeeta Kumari v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11546 of 2025 ====================================================== Ranjeeta Kumari Wife of Anand Prasad Yadav, Resident of Village- Kusmar, P.O. Bagha Kusmar, Police Station- Khutauna, District- Madhubani. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through Collector, Madhubani. 2.

The Collector, Madhubani.

3.

The Civil Surgeon-cum-Member Secretary, District Health Samiti, Madhubani.

4.

The Public Grievances Redressal Officer, Phulparas, District- Madhubani. 5.

The Incharge Medical Officer, Community Health Centre, Khutauna, District- Madhubani.

6.

Mukhiya, Bagha Kusmar Panchayat, District- Madhubani. 7.

Jyoti Kumari D/o Rajendra Prasad Yadav, Resident of Village- Kusmar, P.O. Bagha Kusmar, Police Station- Khutauna, District- Madhubani. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Aditya Nath Jha, Adv For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Kumar Singh AC to GP- (22) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SINGH CHANDEL ORAL ORDER 30-07-2025 Heard learned counsel appearing for both the parties.

2. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that for the selection of the Asha Worker in Aganwari Centre No. 54 of Village Kusmar in Bagha Kusmar Panchayat of Khutauna Anchal of Madhubani District, Aam Sabha was held on 28.02.2025, wherein unanimously Aam Sabha recommended the name of the petitioner for her appointment to the post of Asha Worker. However, vide Annexure P/7, respondent no. 05 appointed the respondent no. 07 Jyoti Kumari to the post of Asha Worker, for which the name of the petitioner has been recommended in the Aam Sabha. He further submits that the petitioner has already made her objection before the respondent

Patna High Court CWJC No.11546 of 2025(2) dt.30-07-2025 2/2 no. 03 vide Annexure P/5 therefore, it is prayed by him that respondent no. 03 may be directed to consider and decide the pending representation/objection submitted by the petitioner.

3. Perusal of the Annexure-P/5 shows that in this objection/representation, signature of the petitioner is missing. It also appears that no receiving of the respondent no. 03 is present therein.

4. Looking to the above, it would be appropriate to dispose of the petition firstly giving liberty to the petitioner to make her objection/representation before the respondent no. 03 afresh within 7 days from today raising her all grounds which she raised in this writ petition and in turn, the respondent no. 03 is also directed to consider and decide and pass a reasoned order in accordance with relevant rules and laws within 45 days from the submission of such objection/representation. The respondent no. 03 is also directed to give ample opportunity of hearing to the respondent no. 07 before passing of such order

5. With the above observation and direction, the petition is disposed of.

(Arvind Singh Chandel , J) krishnakant/- U