Dismissed

Satwanti Devi v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC18 Jan 2018CWJC/2972/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging a fresh advertisement for Anganwari Sevika, the Patna High Court dismissed the petition, holding the petitioner guilty of laches for not exhausting remedies for a prior 2013 selection process and failing to participate in the completed current process.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of without any relief being granted to the petitioner.

Satwanti Devi Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors. — Service and Employment | Patna HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶2

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2972 of 2016

¶3

=========================================================== Satwanti Devi, wife of Shambhu Chaudhary, resident of Village- Baijalpur, P.S.Uphara, District- Aurangabad.

¶4

.... .... Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Bihar.

¶7

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

¶8

The Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

¶9

The Director, ICDS, Bihar, Patna.

¶10

The District Magistrate, Aurangabad.

¶11

The District Program Officer (Establishment), Aurangabad.

¶12

The Child Development Project Officer, Goh, Aurangabad.

¶13

.... .... Respondents

¶14

===========================================================

¶15

Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Santosh Kumar Pandey, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sheo Shankar Prasad, SC-8 Mr. Sanjay Kumar, AC to SC-8

¶16

=========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 18-01-2018

¶17

Heard Mr. Santosh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel

¶18

appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Sheo Shankar Prasad, learned SC-8, for the State.

¶19

The petitioner is aggrieved by Advertisement No. 01 of 2016 in so far as it relates to appointment of Anganwari Sevika for Goh Block, Uphara Panchayat, Baijalpur-III, Center No.20, Ward No.5, in the district of Aurangabad appearing at serial no. 153.

¶20

The grievance of the petitioner is that selection process was initiated in 2013 vide Annexure 1 and pursuant thereto a merit list was prepared, a copy of which is at Annexure 3 and while according to the

¶21

Patna High Court CWJC No.2972 of 2016 dt.18-01-2018

¶22

¶23

petitioner, the person at serial nos. 1 and 2 were not entitled for appointment and which would have gone to the petitioner appearing at serial no.3 but the selection process was abandoned midway to the detriment to the petitioner. It is complaining thus that she has come before his Court.

¶24

A counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the District Magistrate and others connected to inform that the selection process is going to be initiated. On information sought as to the advertisement for the same that today Mr. Prasad produced letter No. 63 dated 16.1.2018 to inform that the selection process is practically over for pursuant to the new selection process two candidates applied, namely, Ruby Kumari and Kusum Kumari but the petitioner did not chose to apply. It is submitted that an Aam Sabha was convened on 3.5.2017 and in which Ruby Kumari has been selected.

¶25

Let the instructions dated 16.1.2018 be maintained on the record of the proceedings.

¶26

The records of the proceeding neither shows any complaint made by the petitioner before the statutory authorities under the guidelines regulating the appointment of Anganwari Sevika nor was the petitioner vigilant enough to approach this Court within a reasonable time, rather a selection process initiated in 2013 in which a merit list was prepared in 2014 that the petitioner has come

¶27

Patna High Court CWJC No.2972 of 2016 dt.18-01-2018

¶28

¶29

complaining against advertisement published in 2016 with a prayer to direct the respondents for completion of the previous selection process.

¶30

The laches is entirely of the petitioner in neither approaching the statutory authorities nor the Court within a reasonable time in respect of earlier selection process and since admittedly she has not participated in the present selection process which has been completed, she has no claim to the post.

¶31

The writ petition is disposed of.

¶32

(Jyoti Saran, J)

¶33

Surendra/-

¶34

AFR/NAFR	NAFR
CAV DATE	NA
UploadingDate	30.01.2018
Transmission Date	NA

Satwanti Devi v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satwanti Devi 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

Kaushal Kishor Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

M/s Hanuman Stone Works Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Sambhu Kumar Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Kameshwar Prasad Singh Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Munmun Ji Tiwary Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Rajnish Raj Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.