Rupam Kumari v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12105 of 2018 ====================================================== Rupam Kumari Wife of Shri Krishnadeo Rai resident of Village Ward No. 7 Mahisari, P.O. Mahisari, Block Ujiarpur, P.S. Ujiarpur, District Samastipur. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State Of Bihar 2.

The Director, Integrated Child Development Scheme Directorate, Under Social Welfare Department, Gov 3.

The District Magistrate, Samastipur.

4.

The District Programme Officer Welfare, District Samastipur, Bihar. 5.

The Child Development Project Officer, Ujiarpur Block, P.S. Ujiarpur District Samastipur.

6.

Mahila Prabekshika for Centre No. 272 in Ward No. 7 of Gram Panchayat Raj Mahisari, Block Ujiarpur, 7.

The Ward Member of Ward No. 7 of village Mahisari, P.S. Ujiarpur, District Samastipur.

8.

Babita Kumari W/o Kapildeo Rai Resident of Village Mahisari, P.O. Mahisari, P.S. Ujiarpur, District Samastipur. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Bijay Bhushan Prasad, Adv.

For the Respondent/s :

Mr.Md.Raisul Haque -SC10 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER 29-07-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

2. The present writ application has been filed by the petitioner for a direction to the respondents to select the petitioner to the post of Anganwari Sevika for Center no. 272 in ward no. 7 of Grampanchayat Raj Mahisari under Ujiarpur Block of Samastipur District.

3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the

Patna High Court CWJC No.12105 of 2018(2) dt.29-07-2024 2/2 petitioner has challenged the appointment of respondent No.8 on the post of Anganwari Sevika/Sehayka for Center No.272 in Ward No.7 of Grampanchayat Raj Mahisari under Ujiarpur Block of Samastipur. He submits that the representation has been filed for independent enquiry, but no decision has been taken, therefore writ petition has been filed.

4. Counsel for the State on the other hand submits that in this matter, enquiry was made and report of enquiry has been mentioned in paragraph 15 of the counter- affidavit. As such, the grievance of the petitioner appears to be settled. Hence, this writ petition is hereby dismissed.

5. With the aforesaid direction, the present writ application is hereby dismissed, granting liberty that if the petitioner has any grievance from the said observations, he shall be at liberty to challenge the same before appropriate authority in accordance with law.

(Dr. Anshuman, J.) Prakashmani/- U