← Library
Patna High CourtCWJC/2486/2011dismissed

Smt. Panwati Kumari v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2018-09-07Mr. Justice Mohit Kumar Shah2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2486 of 2011 =========================================================== Smt. Panwati Kumari W/O Sri Jaihindra Paswan R/O Vill- Narikhurd, P.SNarikhurd, Distt- Vaishali At Hazipur. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State Of Bihar

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

3. The Commissioner, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur.

4. The District Magistrate, Vaishali.

5. The District Programme Officer, Vaishali.

6. The Child Development Programme Officer, Vaishali.

7. The Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Raj Narikhurd, Block- Jandaha, Distt- Vaishali.

8. The Panchayat Secretary , Gram Panchayat Raj Narikhurd, Block- Jandaha, Distt- Vaishali.

9. Urmila Devi, W/O Sri Ashok Paswan, R/O Vill- Narikhurd, P.S- Nari Khurd, Distt- Vaishali.

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Onkar Kumar For the Respondent/s : Mr. Parth Sharthi SC10 =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 07-09-2018 1.

The present writ application has been filed for quashing the order dated 13.06.2009 issued by the respondent no. 4, whereby and whereunder the appointment of the petitioner on the post of Angawari Sevika has been cancelled. The petitioner has further prayed for quashing of the appellate order dated 20.12.2010. 2.

I have heard the learned counsel for the private respondent and the State and gone through the materials on record. A bare perusal of the order dated 20.12.2010 passed in Service Appeal no. 161 of 2009 shows that the same has been passed in accordance

Patna High Court CWJC No.2486 of 2011 dt.07-09-2018 2/2 with law and is a reasoned and just order.

3.

In such view of the matter, no interference is warranted in the present case, hence the present writ petition is dismissed. It is needless to state that the learned counsel who had filed the writ petition, has submitted that he is no longer the counsel since the client has taken no objection from him. Nonetheless, the learned counsel for the state and the private respondent have assisted this Court. (Mohit Kumar Shah, J) rinkee/- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date19.09.2018 Transmission Date NA