Parvati Kumari, v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.24145 of 2019 ====================================================== Parvati Kumari, Wife of Shyam Tanti, resident of Dariyapur, Ward No. 7, P.O.- Hanspur, P.S. Nayagaon (Matihani), District- Begusarai. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through Collector, Begusarai. 2.

The Collector, Begusarai.

3.

The Deputy Development Commissioner, Begusarai. 4.

The District Program Officer (I.C.D.S), Begusarai. 5.

The Block Development Officer, Matihani, Begusarai. 6.

The C.D.P.O., Matihani, Begusarai.

7.

Kiran Kumari, Wife of Jitendra Ray, resident of Dariyapur, P.O. Hanspur, P.S.- Nayagaon (Matihani), District- Begusarai. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Randhir Kumar No.1, Adv.

For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Gyan Shankar, AC to GP-2 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH ORAL ORDER 05-12-2019 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner has questioned selection of respondent no. 7 as Anganbari Sevika for Mini Anganbari Centre No. 190 in Ward No. 7 of Dariyapur Panchayat in the district of Begusarai. The petitioner claims that the area in question is largely populated by the persons belonging to SC category and after arbitrarily altering the mapping register for the selection process in question, the Aam Sabha has illegally selected respondent no. 7.

3. The petitioner has a remedy before the Child

Patna High Court CWJC No.24145 of 2019(2) dt.05-12-2019 2/2 Development Project Officer and the District Programme Officer for redressal of the nature of grievance, which she has raised in the present writ application.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has already approached the Child Development Project Officer, Matihani Block and the District Magistrate, Begusarai, long back questioning appointment of respondent no. 7. Petitioner was also a candidate and has better merit than respondent no. 7, he contends. He submits that till date no decision has been taken.

5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is directed that let the petitioner's grievance be looked into by the District Programme Officer, Begusarai within one month from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order if the petitioner makes a fresh representation within one week from today before the District Programme Officer, Begusarai.

6. Application stands disposed of.

(Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J) Rajesh/- U