Dismissed

Rinki Kumari v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC15 Jan 2018CWJC/3059/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged the appointment of a private respondent. The Court dismissed the writ petition noting the availability of an alternative remedy before the District Programme Officer, granting liberty to approach that authority first.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of with liberty to exhaust the statutory remedy before the District Programme Officer.

Rinki Kumari Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors. — Writ and Judicial Review | Patna HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3059 of 2016

¶2

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

¶3

Rinki Kumari, aged about 26 years, wife of Arun Kumar, resident of Village- Puraulia, P.S. Kaluahi, District- Madhubani.

¶4

.... .... Petitioner/s

¶5

Versus

¶6

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

¶7

The District Magistrate, Madhubani.

¶8

The Senior Deputy Collector cum Deputy Collector Establishment, Madhubani.

¶9

The District Programme Officer, Madhubani.

¶10

The Prakhand Vikas Padadhikari, Kaluahi Prakhand, DistrictMadhubani.

¶11

The Child Development Programme Officer, Kaluahi, DistrictMadhubani.

¶12

The Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Raj, Puraulia, P.S. Kaluahi, DistrictMadhubani.

¶13

Indu Kumari, wife of Sri Ashok Kumar Saho resident of VillagePursaulia, P.S. Kaluahi, District- Madhubani.

¶14

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

¶15

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Vijay Kumar, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, G.A.9

¶16

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL ORDER

¶17

2 15-01-2018 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶18

The petitioner is aggrieved by the appointment of the private respondent.

¶19

Mr. Kumar Ravish learned A.C. to G.A.1 informed that the petitioner has alternative remedy before the District Programme Officer to challenge the selection of the private respondent but without exhausting the alternative remedy that she has rushed to this Court.

¶20

Patna High Court CWJC No.3059 of 2016 (2) dt.15-01-2018

¶21

2/2

¶22

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and in view of the alternative remedy so available to the petitioner, I am not persuaded to grant indulgence and the writ petition is disposed of affording liberty to the petitioner to exhaust the statutory remedy so available to her to question the appointment of the private respondent before the District Programme Officer who is stated to be the competent under the guidelines to dispose of any such grievance.

¶23

The writ petition is disposed of.

¶24

(Jyoti Saran, J)

¶25

Bibhash/-

¶26

Rinki Kumari v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rinki 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anil Kumar and Ors. Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

M/s. Broad Son Commodities Pvt. Ltd. Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Kamlesh Kumar Vs The Union Of India and Ors.

Rampatia and Ors. Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Awdhesh Singh Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Sunita Kumari @ Sunita Devi @ Sunita Dave Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.