Shobha Kumari v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1743 of 2020 ====================================================== Shobha Kumari Wife of Satish Kumar, Resident of village- Parsauni Nath, P.S.- Birimbazar, District- Muzaffarpur.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

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

2.

The District Magistrate-cum- Collector, Muzaffarpur. 3.

The Child Development Project Officer, Muzaffarpur. 4.

The Additional Collector, Muzaffarpur.

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Anuj Kumar, Advt.

For the Respondent/s :

Mr.Md. Raisul Haque (Sc10) Mr. Md. Obaidullah AC to SC-10 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD ORAL ORDER 25-02-2020 Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned counsel for Respondent-State.

The petitioner's counsel submits that she apprehends that her candidature for selection as Anganwari Sevika would be rejected as she expects that certificate-cum-marks sheet in support of her 10th pass qualification issued by the Jharkhand State Open School would not be recognized for the selection process.

Patna High Court CWJC No.1743 of 2020(4) dt.25-02-2020 2/3 The learned counsel for the State submits that from the pleading in the writ petition, it cannot be concluded that as to which selection process the petitioner has participated in for selection as Anganwari Sevika. Neither the details of advertisement nor the Center No. or Ward No. for which she has been applied has been mentioned. On such vague assertions, the petitioner has raised an apprehension that she would be excluded in the process of selection in view of the fact that she has been issued a certificate- cum-marks sheet by the Jharkhand State Open School, which she apprehends may not be considered as a recognized qualification. The apprehension is unfounded and not real and tangible.

It is, on such inadequate pleadings, that the petitioner has sought a direction that the Certificate issued to her by such entity be directed to be considered as a valid, genuine and recognized qualification. Objection is raised by the State counsel that on account of inadequate pleadings, the Court should not exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in favour of the petitioner.

Submissions advanced by the State counsel merits consideration. No clear and tangible threat based on any details is made out from pleadings in the writ petition. The same are

Patna High Court CWJC No.1743 of 2020(4) dt.25-02-2020 3/3 inadequate for this Court to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The writ petition is dismissed.

(Madhuresh Prasad, J) shyambihari/- U