Soni Kumari v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.937 of 2016 =========================================================== Soni Kumari W/o lal Babu Sah R/o Vill+Po- Ismailpur, P.s Hajipur Sadar, Ward no. 05, Panchayat -Ismailpur Block Hajipur, Distt- Vaishali. .... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through Commissioner Cum-Secretary, Department of Social Welfare, Govt. of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna.

2. The Director, Social Welfare Department, Government of Bihar, New Secretariat , Patna.

3. The District Magistrate , Vaishali.

4. The District Programme Officer, Vaishali.

5. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Hajipur, Distt- Vaishali.

6. The Block Development Officer, Hajipur Block , Distt-Vaishali.

7. The Child Development Programme Officer, Hajipur Block ,Distt Vaishali.

8. The Mukhiya Gram Panchayat Raj Ismailpur, Hajipur Block , Distt - Vaishali.

9. Anju Devi W/o Ashok Sah R/o Vill+Po- Ismailpur, P.s Hajipur Sadar, Distt Vaishali.

.... .... Respondents =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shashi Bhushan Kumar, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Ms. Manisha Singh, AC to GP-7 =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 21-06-2017 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The petitioner has questioned the appointment of the private respondent as Anganbari Sevika but I am not persuaded to grant any indulgence to the challenge made, inter alia, on grounds that: (a) the selection process was completed in the year 2013 and the petitioner has chosen to come before this Court belatedly in the year 2016; and (b) although forum for filing complaint against the selection process is provided under the Anganwari Paryavekshika/ Sevika/ Sahaika Guidelines, 2011 where a complaint is to be made before the District

Patna High Court CWJC No.937 of 2016 dt.21-06-2017 Programme Officer against any such process under Clause 10.5 but the complaint so filed by the petitioner at Annexure 3 raises no ground requiring any indulgence. A vague allegation has been made by the petitioner that the selection process was engulfed with irregularities. No specific instance has been made by the petitioner for interfering with the selection process.

The writ petition is bereft of merit, which is dismissed accordingly.

(Jyoti Saran, J) Surendra/- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 23.06.2017 Transmission Date NA