Udwanti Devi v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16770 of 2008 ====================================================== Udwanti Devi, wife of Arjun Sah, resident of village Dharupur, Ward No. 18, P.S. Bikramganj, District Rohtas .... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. The District Magistrate, Rohtas at Sasaram

3. The District Programme Officer, Rohtas

4. The Sub Divisional Officer, Bikramganj, District Rohtas

5. The Child Development Project Officer, Bikramganj, Rohtas

6. Malti Devi, the Ward Counsellor Ward No. 18, Nagar Panchayat, Bikramganj, Rohtas

7. Shushila Kumari, wife of Ashutosh Anand, resident of village Dhorupur, P.S. Bikramganj, District Rohtas .... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dhaneshwar Pd.Gupta, Advocate For the State : Mr. Narendra Kumar Singh, AC to G.P. 2 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH KUMAR DATTA ORAL ORDER 18-09-2015 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

The petitioner is aggrieved on account of non-selection for the post of Anganbari Sevika under Anganbari Centre, Dhobitola, Dharupur, Ward No.18 of Nagar Panchayat Bikramganj, District Rohtas as the selection of respondent No.7 has been made illegally.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner on 19.6.2008 had filed a complaint before the District Magistrate seeking redressal of her grievances but no action has been taken in the matter.

Patna High Court CWJC No.16770 of 2008 (2) dt.18-09-2015 Under the Guidelines for appointment of Anganbari Sevika/Sahayika in case any irregularity is found and a complaint is made, the District Magistrate is required to enquire into the same and pass a speaking order. In the present matter it appears that the District Magistrate has failed to exercise the jurisdiction conferred upon him. In a large number of matters this Court is finding that the High Court is being flooded with litigation by Anganbari Sevika/Sahayika since the District Magistrates concerned are not taking proper action in the matter. In the aforesaid view of the matter, the writ application is disposed of with a direction to the District Magistrate, Rohtas at Sasaram to look into the complaint filed by the petitioner and dispose of the matter within a period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. (Ramesh Kumar Datta, J) spal/- U