Anupma Devi v. Madhu Devi And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Letters Patent Appeal No.1171 of 2017 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14684 of 2008 ====================================================== Anupma Devi, Wife of Niraj Prasad @ Niraj Kumar Shrivastava, Resident of Village- Motihari 'D' Ward No. 9, P.S.- Bairia, District- West Champaran. ... ... Appellant/s

Versus

1. Madhu Devi, Wife of Suman Prasad, Resident of Village- Motihari 'D', Ward No. 9, P.S.- Bairiya, District- West Champaran.

2. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Old Secretariat, Bihar, Patna15.

3. The Divisional Commissioner, Tirhut Range, Muzaffarpur, Bihar.

4. The District Magistrate, West Champaran, Bettiah.

5. The Block Development Officer, Bairiya Block, West Champaran.

6. The Child Development Project Officer, Bairiya, District West Champaran.

7. The Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Raj Tumkariya, District West Champaran.

8. The Panchayat Secretary, Tumkariya, Gram Panchayat Raj, District West Champaran.

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

For the Appellant/s :

Mr. Umesh Chandra Verma For the Respondent/s :

Mr.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI and HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. NILU AGRAWAL ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI) Date : 20-04-2018 Heard counsel for the appellant and learned Senior Counsel for the private respondent.

We are not impressed by the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the marks obtained in the extra paper will accrue to her favour when a comparative analysis is made between the private respondent and her in matter of appointment as Anganwari Sevika.

Patna High Court LPA No.1171 of 2017 dt.20-04-2018 2/2 There is a basic fallacy when reliance is placed by the counsel for the appellant on a Government circular. Since engagement on the post of Anganwari Sevika is not a Government employment as such but is hiring on contract for the purpose of running of mid-day meal centres, therefore, such line of argument will not accrue to her favour.

The learned Single Judge after having analysed all the submissions and the decisions, which was pressed in service, has rightly come to the conclusion and allowed the writ application. No interference is warranted with the order of the learned Single Judge. Appeal is dismissed.

(Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J) ( Nilu Agrawal, J) Rajesh/- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 23.04.2018 Transmission Date NA