Raj Kumari v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18635 of 2017 ====================================================== Raj Kumari, wife of Vikash Chandra, resident of Village- Chakamsakan, (Suryapura), Police Station- Suryagarha, District- Lakhisarai. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

2. The Director, I.C.D.S. Social Welfare Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

3. The Collector-cum- District Magistrate, Lakhisarai.

4. The District Program Officer, Lakhisarai.

5. The District Welfare Officer, Lakhisarai.

6. The Child Development Project Officer, Suryagarha Block, District Lakhisarai.

7. The Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Raj, Suryapura, District- Lakhisarai.

8. The Ward Member of Ward No. 4, Suryapura Panchayat, Police StationSuryagarha, District- Lakhisarai.

9. Smt. Kiran Kumari, Wife of Sri Ajit Kumar, resident of VillageChakamsakan, (Suryapura), Police StationSuryagarha, DistrictLakhisarai.

.... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rabindra Kumar Priyadarshi, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. G.P. Ojha - GA-7 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL ORDER 12-09-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

In the present writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the memo no. 592 dated 21.08.2017 passed by District Programme Officer (I.C.D.S.) District-Lakhisarai by which the claim of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that she had attached a forged and fabricated handicapped certificate and thereby her marks has been reduced to 60.7%, whereas her adversary marks is

Patna High Court CWJC No.18635 of 2017 (4) dt.12-09-2018 2 /2 67.7%.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that his adversary planted a handicapped certificate alongwith the application of the petitioner which is apparently clear from detailed report of the department (Annexure-12).

There is a provision for appeal. If the petitioner is aggrieved, he may file appeal before the Collector of the District and the Collector will examine the records including report of the department and will pass a reasoned order after hearing the parties within a period of four months from the date of filing of the appeal.

With the aforesaid observations and directions this writ petition is disposed of.

(Shivaji Pandey, J) Vinay/Sunny U