Sanju Kumari v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17884 of 2019 ====================================================== Sanju Kumari Wife of Late Dhanpat Kumar resident of Village- Manas Nagar Panapur, P.S.- Akilpur, Block- Danapur, District- Patna. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

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

2.

The Director, I.C.D.S., Patna, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3.

The Collector, Patna.

4.

The District Programme Officer, Patna.

5.

The Child Development Project Officer, Danapur, District- Patna. 6.

The Ward Sadasya, Village- Manas Ward No. 1, Panchayat- Manas, P.S.- Akilpur, Block- Danapur, District- Patna.

7.

The Panch Ward, Ward No. 1, Panchayat- Manas, P.S.- Akilpur, BlockDanapur, District- Patna. 8.

Rupa Devi wife of Prabhat Kumar resident of Ward No. 1, Manas, Naya Panapur, P.S.- Akilpur, Block- Danapur, District- Patna. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

None For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Md. Raisul Haique ( SC- 10 ) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER 07-10-2024 No one appears on behalf of the petitioner. However, Learned Counsel for the State is present.

2. From the pleading of the writ petition, it transpires that the present writ petition has been filed to issue the writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent to select the petitioner on the post of Anganwari Sevika pursuant to letter No. 344 dated 01.07.2019 passed by the Child Development Project Officer, Danapur.

3. It has been pleaded that the petitioner has applied for the post of Anganbari Sevika on 07.09.2017 but the 1st Aam Sabha was held on 15.09.2017, the Second Aam Sabha was

Patna High Court CWJC No.17884 of 2019(4) dt.07-10-2024 2/2 held on 23.09.2017 and the third Aam Sabha was held on 01.07.2019 but selection could not be completed due to nonappearance of respondent Nos. 6 and 7. Counsel submits that the respondent Nos. 3 and 5 is duty bound to complete the selection process but respondent Nos. 6 and 7 want to delay the process because respondent No. 8 is their relative who is at second position. Counsel submits that the petitioner had filed several representation but no action has been taken. Thereafter, he has filed the present writ petition.

4. Learned Counsel for the State on the other hand submits that the District Programme Officer has passed a reasoned order on 28.08.2019 in which a clear cut order has been passed until and unless appointment is not made, no application shall be permissible against the said appointment

5. In this view of the matter, the writ petition stands disposed off, directing the District Programme Officer to complete the appointment process which has been published vide letter No. 506 dated 25.11.2020 with a fixed period of time, if fresh appointment has not been made.

Aman Kumar/- (Dr. Anshuman, J.) U