Mamta Kumari @ Mamta Devi v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14366 of 2023 ====================================================== Mamta Kumari @ Mamta Devi wife of Sanjay Yadav, Resident of villageShahpur, Ramji Tol, ward no. 02 Gram Panchayat, Shahpur, Block Navhatta, P.S- Navhatta, Dist-Saharsa.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through District Magistrate, Saharsa. 2.

The Divisional Commissioner, Kosi Division, Saharsa. 3.

The District Magistrate, Saharsa.

4.

The District Programme officer, I.C.D.S., Saharsa. 5.

Child Development Project Officer, Block Navhatta, District- Saharasa. 6.

Lady Supervisor, cum Secretary, Selection Committee, Child Development Project officer, Block Navhatta, District-Saharsa. 7.

Smita Kumari, wife of Raj Kumar Yadav Resident of village- Shahpur Ramji Tol, ward no. 02 Gram Panchayat, Shahpur, Block Navhatta, P.S- Navhatta, Dist- Saharsa.

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Binod Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Smt. Kumari Amrita (Gp3) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH ORAL ORDER 19-03-2024 The present writ petition has been filed seeking the following relief:- "That this is an application for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari to quash the order dated 19-5-2023 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Kosi Division, Saharsa in Anganbari Revision Case No.110 of 2022 and also the order dated 30-06-2020 passed in Anganbari Appeal Case No.75 of 2019 by the District Programme Officer, Saharsa and further for issuance of a writ in

Patna High Court CWJC No.14366 of 2023(2) dt.19-03-2024 2/2 the nature of mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding upon the respondents to appoint the petitioner as Anganbari Sevika for Anganbari Centre No. 172 in Shahpur Panchayat under Block Navhatta, District Saharsa after cancelling the appointment of respondent no.7."

2.

At the outset, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks not to press the present writ petition, however, seeks liberty on behalf of the petitioner to avail such other alternative remedies as are otherwise available under the law, including that of filing a civil suit before the learned civil court of competent jurisdiction. Liberty, so sought, is granted.

3.

The writ petition stands dismissed as not pressed.

(Mohit Kumar Shah, J) kanchan/- U