Mamta Devi v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.20269 of 2019 ====================================================== Mamta Devi Wife of Rakesh Kumar, Resident of Village- Maliyabari, Ward No. 5, P.O. Fulhatta, P.S. Bela, Block- Parihar, District- Sitamarhi. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2.

The Principal Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

3.

The Director, Integrated Child Development Services, Bihar, Patna. 4.

The District Magistrate, Sitamarhi, District- Sitamarhi. 5.

The District Programme Officer (ICDS), Sitamarhi, District- Sitamarhi. 6.

The Child Development Project Officer, Parihar, District- Sitamarhi. 7.

The Ladies Supervisor, Parihar, District- Sitamarhi. 8.

The Ward Member-cum-Chairman, Selection Committee Ward No. 5 of Naranga Gram Panchayat, Block- Parihar, District- Sitamarhi. 9.

Ranjita Kumari, Wife of Rajiv Kumar @ Rajiv Sah, Resident of VillageMaliyabari, Ward No. 5, P.O.- Fulhatta, P.S. Bela, Block- Parihar, DistrictSitamarhi. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Pushpendra Kumar Singh For the Respondent/s :

Mr.Prashant Pratap (Gp2) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH ORAL ORDER 21-11-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and counsel appearing on behalf of the State.

2. The matter relates to the selection for post of Aanganwari Sevika of Centre No. 120 of Ward No. 5 under Gram Panchayat Raj, Naranga, district- Sitamarhi.

3. The petitioner was applicant for the post in question for selection of respondent No. 9. The selection is governed by guidelines issued by the Welfare Department, Government of

Patna High Court CWJC No.20269 of 2019(3) dt.21-11-2019 2/2 Bihar which contains provision for grievance redressal. The petitioner has already invoked the provision under the guidelines by making an application before the District Programme Officer, in October, 2018.

4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent from which it appears that the petitioner's complaint against the process of selection is still pending before the District Programme Officer.

5. It is evident that complaint filed by the petitioner nearly 13 months ago is still pending which is to be adjudicated upon expeditiously in terms of the provisions under the guidelines.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this application is disposed of with direction that let the petitioner's application dated 01.10.2018 be disposed of within one month from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order.

7. The present writ application is disposed of, accordingly, with the observations and directions as noted above.

(Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J) T.Kr./- U T