Munni Kumari v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10761 of 2018 ====================================================== Munni Kumari Wife of Ajay Kumar, Resident of Village- Tilak Tajpur, Ramnagara, Post- Tilak Tajpur, P.S.- Runnisaidpur, Block- Runnisaidpur, District- Sitamarhi.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

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

2.

The District Magistrate, Sitamarhi.

3.

The District Education Officer, Sitamarhi.

4.

The District Programme Officer- ICDS, Sitamarhi. 5.

The Child Development Programme Officer, Block- Runnisaidpur, Sitamarhi.

6.

The Lady Supervisor-cum Secretary-Selection Committee, Anganbari Center No. 466, Panchayat- Khairka 7.

Vibha Kumari, Wife of Manish Kumar, Resident of Village- Ramnagara, Post- Tilak Tajpur, Block- Runnisaidpur, Sitamarhi. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Ashhar Mustafa, Adv.

For the State :

Mr. Prashant Pratap (GP-2) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER 23-07-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

2. The present writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:- I. For setting aside the order dated 22.05.2018 issued vide Memo No.368 in Anganbari Appeal No.45/2017 passed by the DPO, Sitamarhi.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present matter is relating to appointment of Anganbari Sevika in Ward No.13, Runnisaidpur, Center No.454. Counsel further submits that the petitioner was earlier appointed on the post of

Patna High Court CWJC No.10761 of 2018(2) dt.23-07-2024 2/2 Anganbari Sevika, but subsequently, the respondent preferred appeal and his forged degree from an institution has been considered by the DPO and his appointment was cancelled. Counsel submits that it is true that the remedy of appeal against the order passed by the DPO is before the proper Appellate Authority.

4. Learned counsel for the State submits that the statutory remedy is already available to the petitioner.

5. In this background, it is hereby directed to the petitioner to avail his remedy before the proper Appellate Authority according to the then margdarshika/guidelines for the appointment of Anganbari Sevika.

6. It is directed to the authorities that in case of filing the application before him, the delay if any shall be condoned and whatever be the points raised in the writ petition, shall be taken into consideration and a reasoned and speaking order shall be passed.

7. Hence, with the aforesaid direction, the present writ petition stands disposed off.

(Dr. Anshuman, J) Divyansh/- U