← Library
Patna High CourtCWJC/17405/2019dismissed

Ajay Kumar Bhagat v. The State Of Bihar

2019-10-18Mr. Justice Chakradhari Sharan Singh2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17405 of 2019 ====================================================== Ajay Kumar Bhagat Son of Late Ram Chandra Bhagat, Resident of MohallaStation Road Raj Nagar, Police Station-Raj Nagar, District-Madhubani. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through the Principal secretary, Department of Social Welfare, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

2.

The Director, I.C.D.S. Bihar, Patna.

3.

The District Magistrate, Madhubani.

4.

The Deputy Director, Welfare, Darbhanga, Division, Darbhanga. 5.

The District Welfare Officer Cum District Proframme Oficer, Darbhanga. 6.

The Child Development Officer, Raj Nagar, District-Madhubani. 7.

Rama Singh Wife of Jaggnath Singh, Resident of Gandhi Chauk, Police Station-Raj Nagar, District-Madhubani.

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Shailendra Kumar Jha For the Respondent/s :

Smt. Kumari Amrita (GP-3) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH ORAL ORDER 18-10-2019 The petitioner has questioned the appointment of Respondent No. 7 as Anganbari Sevika at Joint Centre Nos. 1 and 2 situate in Satghara Panchayat, of Madhubani District. He is seeking a direction to the respondent to examine and verify the selection process in respect of said respondent No.7 leading to his appointment as Angabbari Sahiyaka. The petitioner is also seeking quashing of an order dated 30.01.2015 passed by the Deputy Director Welfare, Darbhanga Division Darbhanga, whereby selection of respondent No.7 as Anganbari Sahaiyka

Patna High Court CWJC No.17405 of 2019(2) dt.18-10-2019 2/2 was held to be valid.

2. The petitioner is admittedly not an aspirant of the post. He is claiming himself to be a social worker. A preliminary objection has been taken on behalf of the State of Bihar that the petitioner has no locus standi to maintain this writ application inasmuch as he cannot be said to be an aggrieved person.

3. On consideration of the averments made in the writ application, I find substance in submission made on behalf of the petitioner, who does not have any locus standi to maintain this writ application against selection of respondent No.7.

4. This writ application is frivolous and is, accordingly, dismissed.

(Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J) arun/- U