Mina Devi v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13666 of 2008 ====================================================== Mina Devi, wife of Shyam Lal Singh Chandravanshi, resident of villageKurari, P.O. Dhavpokhar, P.S. Karamchat, District- Kaimur ( Bhabua) .... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Bihar at Patna

2. The Director, Integrated Child Development Scheme , Bihar, Patna

3. The District Magistrate, Kaimur at Bhabua

4. The District Welfare Officer, Kaimur at Bhabua

5. The Child Development Project Officer, Rampur, District-Kaimur

6. The Block Development Officer, Rampur Block, District-Kaimur

7. Jamila Khatoon, Mukhiya , Gram Panchayat-Kurari, P.O. Dharpokhar, P.S. Karamchat, District-Kaimur

8. Radheshyam Singh, Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat-Kurari, P.S. Dhavpokhar, P.S. Karamchat, District- Kaimur

9. Shahjahan @ Shahjahan Khatoon, wife of Salahuddin, resident of village- Kurari, P.O. Dhavpokhar, P.S. Karamchat, District-Kaimur .... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Pathak For the Respondent/s : Mr. GP-27 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 17-05-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Prabhakar Jha, learned Govt. Pleader no.27.

The petitioner has approached this Court, invoking its writ jurisdiction under Article-226 of the Constitution of India, with a prayer to quash entire selection process of Anganbari Sevika in respect of Anganbari Centre -Kurari under Rampur Block, District-Kaimur. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing of order of the District Magistrate, Kaimur. The dispute relates to selection of Anganbari

Patna High Court CWJC No.13666 of 2008 (9) dt.17-05-2017 2/2 Sevika, which was initiated as per advertisement published in the year 2007. Though the petitioner is aggrieved with the order of the District Magistrate, as per provisions contained under the guideline for selection of Anganbari Sevika, 2006, there was provision of appeal, but instead of filing appeal, the petitioner has directly approached this Court.

Since alternative remedy is already available to the petitioner, in all fairness, without going into merit of the case, it would be necessary to dispose of the writ petition granting liberty to the petitioner to avail remedy of appeal.

The writ petition stands disposed of.

It goes without saying that the period consumed in pursuing the present writ petition i.e. from 08.09.2008 till date, shall be excluded while considering the limitation matter. The Court expects that if within eight weeks from today, the petitioner approaches the appellate authority, the appellate authority without being prejudiced with this order may examine the same and pass appropriate order in accordance with law preferably within a period of three months from the date of filing of such appeal. (Rakesh Kumar, J) NKS/- U