Smt Sarswati Kumari v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12593 of 2023 ====================================================== Smt Sarswati Kumari W/o Jitendra Rajvanshi, R/o village Tilakpura, Rajwar Bigha, ward no.3, P.S. Haspura, District-Aurangabad. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar Through Principal Secretary, Social Welfare Department Government of Bihar, Patna.
2.
Collector cum District Magistrate, Aurangabad. 3.
Additional Collector cum Additional District Magistrate, Aurangabad. 4.
District Programme Officer, Aurangabad.
5.
Child Development Programme officer, ICDS, Haspura, Aurangabad. 6.
Ramita Devi, Lady Supervisor, Haspura Block, Aurangabad. 7.
Mukhiya, Sonhathu Gram Panchayat, Block Haspura, District-Aurangabad. 8.
Anju Kumari, W/O Sri Ranjay Ram, R/o village Tilakpura, Rajwar Bigha, ward no.3, P.S. Haspura, District-Aurangabad. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Ashok Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Respondent/s :
Mr.Md. Raisul Haque ( Sc 10 ) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH ORAL ORDER 15-01-2024
1. The present writ petition has been filed seeking the following relief(s):- "1. That by this application, the petitioner is invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court for quashing of the order dated 5.4.2023, passed by the respondent No.3, Additional Collector cum Additional District Magistrate, Aurangabad in Anganbari Sevika @Sahaika Selection Appeal No.1/2021, preferred on behalf of the respondent No.8 against the order dated 20.2.2020, in Appeal Case No.25/2019, passed by
Patna High Court CWJC No.12593 of 2023(2) dt.15-01-2024 2/2 Respondent No.4, District programme Officer, Aurangabad, whereby the appeal filed on behalf of respondent Anju Kumari bearing Appeal No.1/2021 was allowed and the order dated 20.2.2020, passed by the respondent No.5 in Appeal Case No.25/2019 (Sarswati Kumari Versus Anju Kumari) was set aside. And for a direction to the concerned respondents to allow the petitioner to work on the post of Anganbari Sevika. And also for necessary relief/reliefs, order/orders, direction/directions for which the petitioners will be entitled in the law as well as in the facts of the case."
2. At the outset, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks not to press the present writ petition, however, seeks liberty on behalf of the petitioner to avail such other alternative remedies as are otherwise available under the law, including that of filing a civil suit before the learned Civil Court having competent jurisdiction, for redressal of her aforesaid grievances. Liberty so sought is granted.
3. The writ petition stands dismissed as not pressed. (Mohit Kumar Shah, J) Saurav/- U