Kanti Devi v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.19337 of 2010 ====================================================== Kanti Devi W/o Satya Kumar Ram R/o Vill.- Chhapiya Bin Toli, P.O.- Dumari Chhapiya, P.S.- Taraiya, Dsitt.- Saran .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

2. Director, I.C.D.S., Directorate of the I.C.D.S, Patna

3. The Commissioner, Saran Division, Chapra

4. C.D.P.O. Ishuapur Prakhand at and P.O. Ishuapur, Distt.- Saran

5. Prakhand Vikash Padadhikari, Ishuapur Block at And P.O. Ishuapur, Distt.- Saran

6. Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Raj Chhapiya P.S.- Taraiya, Dsitt.- Saran

7. Panchayat Sachiv, Gram Pancahayat Raj Chhapiya P.S.- Taraiya, Dsitt.- Saran

8. Asha Devi W/O Ram Babu Rai R/O Vill.- Chhapiya Bin Toli, P.O. Dumari Chapiya, P.S.- Taraiya, Distt.- Saran .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance:

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shakil Ahmad Khan Mr. Nagendra Rai For the Respondent No. 8: Md. Anis Akhtar Mr. Ranvijay Kumar For the State : Ms Abhanjalli, A.C. to G.A.-2 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH ORAL ORDER 26-06-2018 The petitioner by way of the present writ petition has prayed for quashing of the order of appointment of the respondent no. 8 as Anganwari Sevika of Anganwari Centre No. 7 within Gram Panchayat Raj Chhapiya, Ishuapur Block, District-Saran. The petitioner has further prayed for quashing of the order passed by the learned Court of Commissioner, Saran Division, Chapra passed in Anganwari Sevika Case No. 178 of 2008.

Patna High Court CWJC No.19337 of 2010 (6) dt.26-06-2018 2/2 The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the majority population belongs to the Scheduled Caste and the authorities have wrongly assessed that the majority population is of the backward class, hence the petitioner was required to be given appointment. Undisputedly, according to the order of the learned Commissioner dated 12.6.2010, it has been found and held that the majority population belongs to the backward class, hence the Commissioner has rejected the case of the petitioner. The respondents have also stated in their counter affidavit that the respondent no. 8 belongs to the backward class and being the most eligible candidate, has been rightly appointed. In view of the aforesaid, no relief can be granted to the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, hence the writ petition is dismissed.

(Mohit Kumar Shah, J) S.Sb/- U