Manju Devi @ Manju Kumari, v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1279 of 2020 ====================================================== Manju Devi @ Manju Kumari, wife of Jitendra Kumar Ram @ Jitendra Ram Resident of village- Maujampur, P.O.- Naraon, P.s.- Awtar Nagar DistrictSaran. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Social Welfare, New Secretariat, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 2.

The Director, I.C.D.S., New Secretariat Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 3.

The District Magistrate, Saran at Chhapra.

4.

The Distinct Welfare Officer, Saran at Chhpara. 5.

The District Programme Officer, Saran at Chhpara. 6.

The Child Development Officer, at Garkha Block Saran. 7.

The Supervisor at Garkha Block, for Ward No. 06 of Maujampur Gram Panchayat, Saran.

8.

Asha Devi, wife of Jai Prakash Ram, P.O. Naraon, P.A. Awatar Nagar, District- Saran.

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Arvind Kumar Sinha For the Respondent/s :

Mr.Gyan Shankar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD ORAL ORDER 14-02-2020 Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the respondents-State.

It is petitioner's submission that selection of Sahiyaka ( respondent no.8) for ward no.6 of Maujampur Gram Panchayat was based on forged and fabricated educational testimonial. Complain dated 06.09.2019 (Annexure 7 series) was lodged by the petitioner before the Child Development Officer, Garkha.

Patna High Court CWJC No.1279 of 2020(2) dt.14-02-2020 2/3 Counsel for the State submits that Headmaster of the concerned school has stated in letter dated 26.09.2019 that certificate relied upon by respondent no.8 is genuine. The order of the Child Development Project Officer, Garkha upon complain made by the petitioner however, is not placed in the counter affidavit nor there is any reference to final order being passed by the Child Development Project Officer pursuant to said verification process.

Unless an order is issued, petitioner would not be in a position to take a decision that he is satisfied with the same, and that enquiry has been done in accordance with law or not. Being faced with such submission on behalf of the petitioner, counsel for the State submits that appropriate order would be passed in accordance with law without any undue delay by respondent no.6.

Let speaking order be passed in accordance with law by respondent no.6 (Child Development Project Officer, Garkha) based on verification referred to in the counter affidavit expeditiously and without any undue delay and preferably within the period of eight weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, in accordance with law and after giving opportunity to the necessary parties.

Patna High Court CWJC No.1279 of 2020(2) dt.14-02-2020 3/3 Writ petition stands disposed of.

s.hassan/- (Madhuresh Prasad, J) U