← Library
Patna High CourtCWJC/20044/2019disposed

Kanchan Kumari v. The State Of Bihar

2019-11-14Mr. Justice Chakradhari Sharan Singh2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.20044 of 2019 ====================================================== Kanchan Kumari, W/o Deepak Kumar Singh, Resident of Village-Satuahi, Ward No.2, Panchayat, Kajichak, P.S.-Jamhore, Block-Barun DistrictAurangabad (Bihar) ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

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

2.

Director Social Welfare Department, Govt. of BIhar, Patna. 3.

District Magistrate, Aurangabad.

4.

District Programme Officer, Aurangabad.

5.

Child development Project Officer, Barun, Aurangabad. 6.

Block Development Officer, Barun, Aurangabad. 7.

Rani Kumari, W/o not Known to the Petitioner, at Present to Working as Supervisor Panchayat Kajichak Block, Barun, Aurangabad. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Ajit Ranjan Kumar, Advocate Mr. Harendra Kumar Singh, Advocate For the State :

Mr. Binay Kumar, Advocate, A.C. to S.C.-10 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 14-11-2019 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. An order of the District Programme Officer, Aurangabad, dated 02.06.2014 whereby petitioner's claim for selection to the post of Anganbari Sevika has been rejected, is under challenge in the present writ application. The selection to the post of Anganbari Sevika is governed by the guidelines issued by the Welfare Department, Government of Bihar, which, inter alia provides for remedy against an order passed by the District

Patna High Court CWJC No.20044 of 2019 dt.14-11-2019 2/2 Programme Officer. The petitioner has remedy of challenging the order before the Divisional Commissioner under the new guidelines. Under the old guidelines, which prevailed during the process of selection in question, an appeal could have been preferred by the petitioner before the District Magistrate.

3. Since the petitioner has remedy under the guidelines to question the correctness of the impugned order, he shall be at liberty to file an application before appropriate authority, accordingly.

4. This writ application is accordingly disposed of with the observation as noted above.

(Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J) S.Ali/- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE N.A.

Uploading Date 15/11/2019 Transmission Date N.A.