Sanju Kumari v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10597 of 2013 ===========================================================

1. Sanju Kumari W/O Ajit Kumar R/O Village Yashpur, P.S. Fatehpur, District Gaya.

.... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State Of Bihar.

2. Divisional Commissioner, Magadh Division, Gaya.

3. Disst. Magistrate, Gaya.

4. Disst. Programme Officer, Gaya.

5. C.D.P.O., Fathepur, Gaya.

6. Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat, Naudiha Sultanpur.

7. Panchayat Sevak, Gram Panchayat Naudiha Sultanpur.

8. Sangeeta Kumari W/O Shyamdeo Pd. Yadav R/O Village Yashpur, P.O. Tarawan, P.S. Fathepur, District Gaya.

.... .... Respondents =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Mukesh Kumar Thakur, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Chitranjan Sinha, Sr. Advocate, PAAG 2 Mr. Shashi Shekhar Kr. Prasad, AC to PAAG 2 =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 10-08-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State.

In the present case, the petitioner has raised a grievance that she has been deprived of the appointment of Anganbari Sevika illegally.

The matter relates to the appointment of Anganbari Sevika at the Anganbari Centre, Yashpur Middle (Code-171). After the selection, Sanju Bharti @ Soni Kumari was appointed but she tendered her resignation from her post, thereafter, one

Patna High Court CWJC No.10597 of 2013 dt.10-08-2016 2/2 Sangeeta Kumari was appointed and her appointment has been cancelled.

The petitioner approached the Collector and the Collector held that a new scheme has come for the appointment of Anganwari Sevika, in such view of the matter, the claim of the petitioner cannot be entertained. Thereafter, the petitioner has approached the Commissioner who has refused to interfere as the Commissioner did not find any illegality in the order. Any vacancy, after her resignation, would go to subsequent year of appointment.

This Court does not find any merit in the present case. Accordingly, this application is dismissed.

(Shivaji Pandey, J) ajaypd./- U