Patna High CourtMJC/840/2016dismissed

Reeta Devi v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2016-09-21Mr. Justice Ajay Kumar Tripathi2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.840 of 2016 IN Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 2043 of 2014 =========================================================== Reeta Devi W/o Sri Jainandan Paswan Resident of Village- Durmatta, P.S.- Harpur, Block- Sangrampur, District- Munger.

.... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. The Director, ICDS, Social Welfare Department, Government of Bihar, Patna Namely Sri Shashi Bhushan Kumar IAS.

3. Sri Nayan Kunga, The Commissioner, Munger Division, Patna

4. The District Magistrate, Munger Namely Sri Amrendra Narayan Singh.

5. The District Programme Officer, Munger Namely Sri Premkant Surya.

6. The Child Development Project Officer, Sangrampur, District Munger, through Smt.Sunita Kumari.

7. The Gram Panchayat Raj Dumatta,P.S. Sangrampur, District- Munger through Mukhiya Sri Ram Senhi Yadav

8. The Chairman, Selection Committee of Anganwari Sevika, Code No. 69, Centre Durmatta- 1 Within Durmatta Gram Panchayat Raj,P.S.- Sangrampur, DistrictMunger Namely Sunita Kumari C.D.P.O.

9. Smt. Rupam Kumari W/O Sri Manoj Kumar Kapri Resident Of VillageDurmatta, Within Block And P.S.- Sangrampur, District- Munger .... .... Opposite Parties =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner :

Mr. Pranav Kumar Jha, Advocate For the State :

Smt. Binita Singh, G.P.31 =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 21-09-2016 Prima facie the Court is satisfied that the opposite parties have taken steps for compliance of the direction by initiating a fresh process of selection. No doubt there has been some delay but since the said delay is not extraordinary and it seems that a collective decision has been taken to fill up all vacancies available by initiating a process simultaneously including of the centre in question, therefore, the Court is not satisfied that the opposite parties need to be

Patna High Court MJC No.840 of 2016 dt.21-09-2016 2 / 2 proceeded against under the contempt jurisdiction. If the petitioner is eligible in terms of the guidelines prevalent, she surely has a right for being considered. Contempt application is dismissed.

(Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.) S.Kumar/- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE Uploading Date 22.09.2016 Transmission Date