Manjula Devi v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17790 of 2023 ====================================================== Manjula Devi wife of Sudhir Ram, resident of Village and Panchayat - Maheshua, Ward No. 11. P.S. - Triveniganj, District - Supaul. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

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

The Commissioner, Kohi Division, Saharsa.

3.

The Collector - cum - District Magistrate, Supaul. 4.

The District Programme officer, Supaul.

5.

The Child Development Project officer, Triveniganj, District Supaul. 6.

Parvati Kumari wife of Raj Deo Kumar Ram, resident of Village and Grampanchayat Maheshua, Ward No. 11, P.S. - Triveniganj, District - Supaul.

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Ashwani Kumar Tiwary, Adv.

For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Subhash Prasad Singh ( GA-3 ) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER 28-07-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present writ petition admittedly arises out of Anganbari matter.

3. Learned counsel for the State raised preliminary objection and submits that the issue involved in the present writ petition is covered by the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 695 of 2023 (Ram Dulari Devi Vs. The State of Bihar and Ors.) decided on 09.04.2026.

Patna High Court CWJC No.17790 of 2023(2) dt.28-07-2026 2/3

4. Having considered the rival submissions on behalf of the parties and upon perusal of the aforesaid judgment, this Court deems it necessary to quote the relevant para nos. 15 to 19 of the aforesaid judgment which states as under:- "15. In view of the aforesaid settled principles, this Court is of the considered opinion that the writ petition itself was not maintainable, as the dispute pertains to engagement under a government scheme and does not involve violation of any statutory provision or enforceable legal right.

16. This Court, therefore, finds that the learned Single Judge has correctly appreciated the legal position and has rightly declined to exercise writ jurisdiction, leaving it open for the appellant to avail alternative remedies, if so advised.

17. Since the writ petition itself was not maintainable, this Court does not deem it appropriate to enter into the merits of the rival claims with respect to eligibility, residence, or alleged irregularities in the selection process.

18. In view of the discussions made hereinabove, no ground for interference is made out in exercise of intra-court

Patna High Court CWJC No.17790 of 2023(2) dt.28-07-2026 3/3 appellate jurisdiction.

19. Accordingly, the present intra court appeal stands dismissed."

5. As such, in the light of order passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court as mentioned above, this Court finds that this writ petition is not maintainable.

6. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands dismissed.

(Dr. Anshuman, J) Divyansh/- U