Smt. Priyanka Sinha v. The State Of Bihar And ORS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.15802 of 2015 ====================================================== Smt. Priyanka Sinha, aged about 24 years wife of Sri Sanjeev Kumar and daughter of late Narendra Prasad, resident of Village- Pearpura, PO- Nagala Kinjar, P.S- Paliganj, Block- Paliganju, District- Patna (Bihar). .... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1 The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Child Development Officer, Paliganj, District- Patna
2. The Collector, Patna
3. The Deputy Director, Welfare, Patna Division, Patna
4. The District Programme Officer, Patna.
5. The Child Development Officer, Paliganj, District- Patna.
6. Lady Supervisor Mouri Pearpura Grampanchayat, Pearpura Area, Paliganj Block, District- Patna
7. Shahmila Kumari, wife of Sri Ganesh Kumar Singh, resident of VillagePearpura, P.O.- Nagala Kinjar, P.S.-Paliganj, Block- Paliganj, DistrictPatna (Bihar). .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Dilip Kumar, Advocate.
For the Respondent/s :
Mr. R.R.K. Pandey, SC-29 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MIHIR KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 06-10-2015 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Having regard to the finding arrived at by the two of the authorities in holding the appointment of the petitioner on the post of Anganbari Sevika to be in violation of the Clause 4.7 of the Anganbari Sevika/Sahayika Guidelines,2011, this Court is not now going to sit in appeal on such finding.
The finding of the appellate authority in the impugned order, in fact, is that neither the petitioner was the resident of Poshak Area nor she was the permanent resident of the village where her appointment was made As a matter of fact, the appellate
Patna High Court CWJC No.15802 of 2015 (2) dt.06-10-2015 2/2 authority had also found that she was already married to one Sanjeev Kumar, who was an employee in a Government service in the Secretariat at Patna and that the appointment of the petitioner on the post of Anganbari Sevika in her own village (maeka) was not permissible. Such finding of fact cannot be now gone into by this Court and, therefore, this writ application must be and is accordingly dismissed.
(Mihir Kumar Jha, J) Sujit/- U