Anju Kumari v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14679 of 2010 ====================================================== Anju Kumari wife of Sri Mahabir Singh , resident of village - Karan Bigha, P.O.- Injore, P.S.- Mehandiya, District - Arwal .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State Of Bihar Through Commissioner-Cum-Secretary, Welfare Department, Bihar, Patna

2. The District Magistrate, Arwal

3. The Director, Child Development Project, Bihar, Patna

4. The Deputy Development Commissioner, Arwal

5. The District Welfare Officer, Arwal

6. The Child Development Project Officer, Kaler, Arwal

7. The Block Development Officer, Kaler, Arwal

8. The Mukhia, Gram Panchayat Raj Injore, P.O.- Injore, P.S.- Mehandiya, Distt.- Arwal

9. The Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Raj Injore P.O.- Injore, P.S.- Mehandiya, Distt.- Arwal

10. Karuna Kumari wife of Sri Santosh Kumar resident of Village- Karan Bigha, P.O.- Injore, P.S.- Mehandiya, Distt.- Arwal .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Mahesh Narayan Parbat For the Respondent/s : None ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 17-05-2017 On call, none appeared on behalf of the State. Yesterday also, there was non appearance on behalf of the State. Sri Mahesh Narayan Parbat, learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that advertisement was published for selection of Anganbari Sewika in respect of Anganbari Centre of village - Karan Bigha under Gram Panchayat Raj Injore in the district of Arwal . He submits that at least for about three years being Anganbari Sahayika the petitioner was asked to function as

Patna High Court CWJC No.14679 of 2010 (3) dt.17-05-2017 2/2 Anganbari Sewika of the concerned Centre, however at the time of selection her experience and qualification was ignored and private respondent no. 10 was selected as Anganbari Sewika of the Centre. He submits that aggrieved with the illegal action , petitioner filed representation before the District Magistrate vide Annexure '5' to the writ petition, however, no decision has been taken till date on her representation.

The present writ petition was filed in the month of September, 2010 and till date no counter affidavit has been filed and even continuously on two dates, there was non appearance on behalf of the State. Accordingly, instead of adjourning the matter, the Court proposes to dispose of the writ petition granting liberty to the petitioner to file fresh representation before the District Magistrate, Arwal regarding her grievances, which has been raised in the present writ petition. If such representation is filed within a period of six weeks from today, the Court expects that the learned District Magistrate, Arwal / respondent no. 2 may examine the same and pass appropriate order in accordance with law preferably within a period of three months from the date of filing of such representation.

(Rakesh Kumar, J) Praful/- U