Anamika Kumari v. The State Of Bihar And ORS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.393 of 2016 ====================================================== Anamika Kumari, W/o Shashi Sekhar Azad, resident of Village Darkha, Post.- Darkha, P.S.- Sikandara, District- Jamui. .... .... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary Deptt. of Social Welfare, Govt. of Bihar.
2. The District Magistrate, Jamui.
3. The Deputy Director, Deptt. of Welfare, Munger Division, Munger.
4. The District Programme Officer, Jamui.
5. The Child Development Project Officer, Block- E.- Aligang, Distt.- Jamui.
6. Reeta Devi, W/o Sri Ashok Kumar, at present Aanganwari Sevika, Centre No. 119, Village Darkha, District- Jamui.
.... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Harish Kumar, Adv. Mr. Amit Bhushan, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Raj Kishore Rai, GP-18 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL ORDER 07-02-2017 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Anganwari Sevika in Anganwari Kendra No. 119, at village Darkha, in the District of Jamui but her appointment was questioned by the private respondent no.6, inter alia, on grounds that she did not belong to majority class, which according to the private respondent came from Extremely Backward category. An enquiry was held under the directions of the authorities and during which it has transpired that the majority class in the village comes from Extremely Backward Class. The report of the Child Development Project Officer is at Annexure 'C' and the Ladies
Patna High Court CWJC No.393 of 2016 (2) dt.07-02-2017 Supervisor's report is enclosed thereto. The Lady Supervisor has referred the details given by the two contestants and which again goes in favour of Extremely Backward Class and since it is an issue of fact determined on the figures available, this Court is not persuaded to interfere with the order put to challenge herein. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. (Jyoti Saran, J) Surendra/- U