Reena Kumari, v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.392 of 2020 ====================================================== Reena Kumari, W/o Bipin Bihari Kumar, Resident of Village-Dostiya Panchayat Barwa Ward No. 13, Prakhand Motihari, P.S.- Lakhaura, DistrictEast Champaran. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Bihar, Patna.

2.

The Director, Integrated Child Development Service, Bihar, Patna. 3.

The District Magistrate, East Champaran, Motihari. 4.

The District Programme Officer, ICDS East Champaran, Motihari. 5.

The Child Development Project Officer, Motihari Rural, East Champaran. 6.

Ranju Kumari, W/o Ajeet Kumar Yadav, Resident of Village-Dostiya Panchayat Barwa Ward No. 13, Prakhand-Motihari, P.S.-Lakhaura, DistrictEast Champaran. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner :

Mr.Sunil Kumar Pandey, Advocate For the State :

Mr.S. K. Mandal, S.C.-3 Smt. Neelam Kumar, AC to SC-3 Mr. Bipin Kumar, AC to SC-3 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD ORAL ORDER 04-08-2022 The petitioner's selection as Anganwari Sevika has been cancelled by order dated 05.06.2017 by the District Programme Officer, East Champaran, Motihari in Case No.35/2016. The appeal against the said order, bearing Miscellaneous Case No.42/2017, has also met the same fate, as the petitioner's appeal has been dismissed by the Collector-cumDistrict Magistrate, East Champaran, Motihari by order dated 15.10.2019. Both these orders are impugned in the instant writ petition.

Patna High Court CWJC No.392 of 2020(6) dt.04-08-2022 2/2 Cancellation of the petitioner's selection is based on the ground that she was not fulfilling the requisite qualification as her testimonial in support of being Matriculate was not by a recognized Board or Institute, therefore, could not have been relied upon in support of the petitioner's candidature in the process of selection, since the certificate has been issued from the Board of Higher Secondary Education, Delhi, which is not a valid or genuine institution.

Petitioner's counsel submits that the petitioner had appeared for the examination conducted by the said Board oblivious of the fact that it was not a valid or genuine institution, therefore she cannot be held responsible in any manner and in the circumstances, she has become a victim of circumstances.

As unfortunate as it may seem, the fact of it being invalid and ingenuine, not being disputed by the petitioner, there is no occasion for this Court to interfere with the orders cancelling her selection.

Writ petition is dismissed.

(Madhuresh Prasad, J) PNM U