Dismissed

Rinku Kumari v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC9 Mar 2015CWJC/3384/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner challenged her removal as an Aanganbari Sevika. The selection had been contingent on the vacancy created by the removal of a previous appointee. The Divisional Commissioner restored the previous appointee. The High Court dismissed the writ, holding the petitioner had no independent right to the post.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed.

Rinku Kumari Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Patna HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶2

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3384 of 2015

¶3

=========================================================== 1. Rinku Kumari Wife of Manoj Kumar, resident of village Ghashi Bigha Garaur, P.O. Garaur, Police Station Chhabilapur, District Nalanda.

¶4

.... .... Petitioner/s

¶5

Versus

¶6

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

¶7

The Director Integrated child Development Scheme, Bihar, Patna.

¶8

The Divisional Commissioner, Patna Division, Patna.

¶9

The District Magistrate, Nalanda at Biharsharif.

¶10

The District Programme Officer, Nalanda.

¶11

The Child Development Poject Officer, Rajgir Nalanda.

¶12

Susaina Devi wife of resident of village Ghashi Bigha Garaur, P.O. Garaur, Police Station Chhabilapur, District Nalanda.

¶13

.... .... Respondent/s

¶14

=========================================================== Appearance :

¶15

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Anil Kumar Singh For the Respondent/s : Mr. GP17- Binodji Verma

¶16

=========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 09-03-2015

¶17

Selection of the petitioner on the post of Aanganbari Sevika was contingent selection. The vacancy was created because to removal of the previous Aanganbari Sevika. The said order was challenged right up till the Divisional Commissioner. The Divisional Commissioner found the orders of the subordinate authorities to be illegal and set aside the decision of removal. That created a right of the previous Aanganbari Sevika to be restored and claim her post. Naturally, the petitioner has been removed. Now, the petitioner has approached the Court.

¶18

Since the selection of the petitioner was not in absolute

¶19

Patna High Court CWJC No.3384 of 2015 dt.09-03-2015

¶20

2/2

¶21

term but was contingent because of the vacancy created due to removal of previous Aanganbari Sevika, on her return the petitioner will have to make a room for the previous appointee. Petitioner does not get an independent right to continue.

¶22

No interference is warranted with the decision. Writ, therefore, is dismissed.

¶23

(Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J)

¶24

Rinku Kumari v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rinku Kumari v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rupesh Kumar Singh @ Kaliya Vs The State Of Bihar

Mahendra Prasad Vs The State Of Bihar

Girja Prasad @ Girija Prasad Vs The State Of Bihar

Ganga Prasad Labh Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Dr. Sushil Jha Vs The Lalit Narayan Mithila University and Ors.

Reena Kumari Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.