Kamli Kumari v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

Patna High Court CWJC No.1876 of 2016 dt.21-09-2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1876 of 2016 ===========================================================

1. Kamli Kumari wife of Sri Harendra Prasad Singh, Resident of village- Daud Nagar, P.O.- Daud Nagar Chakgadho, P.S. and Block- Biddupur, District- Vaishali .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Government of Bihar, Patna

2. Director, I.C.D.S. Directorate, Govt. of Bihar, Patna

3. Deputy Director, Welfare, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur.

4. District Programme Officer, Vaishali, District- Vaishali

5. Child Development Project Officer, Biddupur, District- Vaishali

6. Sulekha Kumari wife of Sri Ajit Kumar Singh, Resident of village- Daud Nagar, P.O.- Daud Nagar Chakgadho, P.S. and Block- Biddupur, District- Vaishali .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sumit Kumar, Adv. Mr. Nand Kumar Singh For the Respondent/s : Ms. Alka Verma, A.C. to SC7 =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 21-09-2017 Heard Mr. Sumit Kumar learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Alka Verma learned A.C. to S.C.7 for the State. The writ petition has been filed for questioning the order bearing Memo No. 83/MU dated 16.4.2015 passed by the Deputy Director, Welfare, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur whereby the Deputy Director while dismissing the Appeal No. 103 of 2013-14 filed by the private respondent has upheld the order of the District Programme Officer to cancel the selection process under which the private respondent had been appointed but with a liberty of participation to

Patna High Court CWJC No.1876 of 2016 dt.21-09-2017 the contesting parties provided they possess the basic qualification for the appointment. The petitioner being a contestant in the earlier selection process has questioned the order primarily on grounds that since the appointment of the private respondent has been set aside, her case be considered for appointment but in my opinion since the orders impugned in this writ petition has been passed on grounds of faulty selection process, the candidature of the petitioner in the said process would meet the same fate.

In the circumstances discussed, no cause for indulgence is made out in the orders impugned. The writ petition is disposed of. (Jyoti Saran, J) Bibhash/- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 24.09.2017 Transmission Date NA