Patna High CourtCWJC/590/2015disposed

Asha Kumari v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2019-01-08Mr. Justice Madhuresh Prasad2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No 590 of 2015 ====================================================== Asha Kumari W/O Sri Guneshwar Chaudhary R/O At+P.O.- Madhopur, P.S.- Bibhutipur, District- Samastipur.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

2. The Director, Intergrated Child Development Shcheme, Bihar, Patna.

3. The District Magistrate, Samastipur, District- Samastipur.

4. The District Programme Officer (I.C.D.S.) Samastipur, District- Samastipur.

5. Kumari Asha D/O Bhola Singh, Resident of Village - Kalyanpur, PS - Kalyanpur, District - Samastipur working as Anganbari Sevika, ICDS Kalyanpur, District - Samastipur ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr Mrityunjay Kumar, Advocate For the S t a t e :

Mr Prashant Kumar, AC to SC V ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 08-01-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent-State.

2 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the writ petition has been filed for cancelling the selection of respondent No 5 as Lady Supervisor. Respondent No 5 and petitioner, both are allegedly working as Sevika and, as such, had applied for appointment as Lady Supervisor pursuant to advertisement (Annexure 1) dated 21.07.2010. During pendency of the writ petition, respondent No 5 has been found unworthy of

Patna High Court CWJC No.590 of 2015 dt.08-01-2019 2/2 consideration and her candidature has been rejected under order dated 01.06.2015 issued by the District Magistrate, Samastipur. 3 In view of such developments subsequent to filing of the writ petition, only thing remains is whether the respondentauthorities are obliged to consider the candidature of the petitioner for appointment in question.

4 Since the candidature of respondent No 5 has already been rejected, this Court would only observe that the authorities are obliged to proceed in accordance with extant guidelines and provision relating to selection.

5 Writ petition stands disposed of.

(Madhuresh Prasad, J) M.E.H./- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 10.01.2019 Transmission Date NA