Sidharth Jan Kalyan Samiti v. The Principal Secretary Social Welfare Department And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2206 of 2013 ====================================================== Sidharth Jan Kalyan Samiti through its Chairman Shri Radhey Shyam, At Ganoura, Via- Madhepur, Block- Marauna, District- Supaul, Bihar, Pin847408, At Present F. No. 405, Sharnam Apartment, Near New Patliputra, P.S., Patliputra, Gosaitola, Patna.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The Principal Secretary, Social Welfare Department.

2. The Director, Directorate of Integrated Child Development Scheme (Social Welfare Department), Indira Bhawan, 2nd Floor, Ramcharitra Singh Path, Patna-01.

3. The District Magistrate, Supaul, Bihar.

4. The District Program Officer, Supaul, Bihar .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Yashraj Bardhan For the Respondent/s : Mr. Ashok Kumar Keshri, AAG-11 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL ORDER 22-02-2016 This writ petition was filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by the aborting of the selection process initiated for operating Anganwari Training Centres at various places in the State which advertisement was published on 12.2.2009 and while doing so the petitioner has also questioned the second advertisement published on 22.12.2012.

The reasons stand explained in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents at paragraph 3 onwards explaining the circumstances in which the earlier advertisement was not acted upon and it is stated that the second advertisement has been acted upon and the selection has also resulted in appointment of 3 organizations to operate the centres. Admittedly the petitioner

Patna High Court CWJC No.2206 of 2013 (5) dt.22-02-2016 did not choose to respond to the second advertisement. In the nature of the relief so prayed in the writ petition and the explanation advanced in the counter affidavit I do not find any reasonable ground to keep the mater pending. It is stated by Mr. Yashraj Bardhan that the petitioner was an applicant for setting up one such centre at Supaul and since the advertisement was not acted upon hence no such centre is set up in the district of Supaul. Learned counsel seeks liberty for the petitioner to respond to any such advertisement in future in relation to District- Supaul. In absence of any such stand taken in the counter affidavit to preclude the petitioner from applying against any such future advertisements, I think the apprehension is misplaced. The writ petition stands disposed of.

(Jyoti Saran, J) SKPathak/- U