Saroj Kumari v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18342 of 2024 ====================================================== Saroj Kumari, D/o Rameshwar Yadav, W/o Surendra Yadav, resident of Village- Nagdaha, Ward no.- 8 under Panchayat Nagdaha, Police StationMalahi, District- East Champaran. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

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

The Joint Secretary, Jharkhand Academic Council, Ranchi, Jharkhand. 3.

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

4.

The Director, ICDS, Patna.

5.

The Divisional Commissioner, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur, Bihar. 6.

The District Magistrate, East Champaran at Motihari. 7.

The Child Development Project Officer, Areraj, East Champaran. 8.

The Chairman -cum- Ward Member, Selection Committee of Ward no.- 8 under Panchayat - Nagdaha, District- East Champaran. 9.

The Lady Supervisor, Areraj, East Champaran, Sector-5. 10.

Uma Kumari, W/o Arjun Giri, resident of Village- Nagdaha, Ward no.- 8 under Panchayat Nagdaha, P.S.- Malahi, Block- Areraj, District- East Champaran.

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Jitendra Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Government Advocate (02) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 03-12-2024 Heard learned Advocate for the petitioner and the learned Advocate for the State.

2. The petitioner is aggrieved with the order dated 29.10.2024 passed by the District Programme Officer, East Champaran at Motihari whereby the appointment of the petitioner on the post of Anganbari Sevika of Centre no. 186, Village Nagdaha, Ward no. 8, Block Areras, District East Champaran stood cancelled. By the impugned order direction has also been given to the Child Development Officer, Areraj

Patna High Court CWJC No.18342 of 2024(2) dt.03-12-2024 2/2 for recovery of the remuneration of the petitioner.

3. Learned Advocate for the petitioner contended that the impugned order of cancellation of her appointment has been passed, without there being any proper verification of the certificate on the basis of which she had secured appointment as Anganbari Sevika.

4. At this juncture, learned Advocate for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the guidelines of Anganbari Sevika & Sahayika of the year 2019 and submits that the petitioner has statutory remedy of revision appeal before the Divisional Commissioner of the concerned division.

5. In view of the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and considering the fact that the petitioner has statutory remedy of revision appeal before the Divisional Commissioner, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur, the writ petition stands disposed off with a liberty to the petitioner to avail the remedy aforesaid.

6. Suffice it to observe that if the petitioner would be filing the revision appeal before the concerned authority, the same shall be considered and disposed off expeditiously, in accordance with law.

(Harish Kumar, J) supratim/- U