Dismissed

Kumod Kumari alias Kumud Kumari v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC23 Oct 2019CWJC/17784/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the Patna High Court dismissed the petitioner's challenge to the dismissal of her application for the post of Anganwari Sevika. The Court held that eligibility must be present on the last date of application submission as per the advertisement, and late acquisition of qualification could not be entertained. The writ was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The writ application is dismissed as it is found to have no merit.

Kumod Kumari alias Kumud Kumari Vs The State of Bihar — Service and Employment | Patna HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17784 of 2019

¶2

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

¶3

Kumod Kumari alias Kumud Kumari, W/o Sri Binod Kumar, Resident of Village Balaha, P.S.- Parsauni, Distt.- Sitamarhi

¶4

... ... Petitioner/s

¶5

Versus

¶6

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

¶7

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

¶8

The Director Integrated Child Development Scheme, Welfare Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna

¶9

¶10

The Collector, Sitamarhi

¶11

The District Programme Officer, Integrated Child Development Scheme, Sitamarhi

¶12

¶13

The Child Development Project Officer, Parsauni, Distt.- Sitamarhi

¶14

The Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Raj Bishunpur Dema, P.S.- Parsauni, Distt.Sitamarhi

¶15

The Panchayat Sachiv, Gram Panchayat Raj Bishunpur Dema, P.S.Parsauni, Distt.- Sitamarhi

¶16

Asha Kumari, W/o Sri rajiv Raman Singh, Resident of Village Balaha, P.S.Parsauni, Distt.- Sitamarhi

¶17

... ... Respondent/s

¶18

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

¶19

Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. V.R.P. Singh, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Gyan Shankar, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH

¶20

ORAL ORDER

¶21

2 23-10-2019 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶22

The petitioner has put to challenge an order dated

¶23

19.03.2019, passed by the Collector, Sitamarhi in Appeal No. 35 of 2015 whereby he has refused to interfere with an order dated 10.05.2014, passed by the District Programme Officer, Sitamarhi in Case No. 09 of 2014.

¶24

Patna High Court CWJC No.17784 of 2019(2) dt.23-10-2019 2/3

¶25

The facts of the case are short, for the purpose of present adjudication, and are not in dispute. The matter arises out of selection process for appointment of Anganwari Sevika pursuant to an advertisement issued on 30.03.2007. 09.04.2007 was, admittedly, the last date for submission of application form. ‘Pass’ in Intermediate examination on the last date of submission of application form, was the minimum educational qualification prescribed in the advertisement for the said post. On the last date of advertisement i.e. 09.04.2007 the petitioner was admittedly not having the Intermediate qualification. She acquired the said qualification on 31.05.2007. The petitioner had raised her grievance thereafter and the dispute raised by the petitioner continued to be considered this way or that way before the authorities. Finally, the impugned order has been passed by the Collector, Sitamarhi on the merits of her case.

¶26

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that Aam Sabha was held for considering selection of Anganwari Sevika on 19.06.2007. He has referred to Clause-6(viii) of 2006 Guidelines issued for selection of Anganwari Sevika/ Sahayika to contend that since the petitioner had acquired the said qualification one week before holding of Aam Sabha , her candidature could not have

¶27

Patna High Court CWJC No.17784 of 2019(2) dt.23-10-2019 3/3

¶28

been rejected on the ground that she was not having such qualification on the last date of submission of application form as prescribed in the advertisement. He contends that it was wrongly prescribed in the advertisement inviting applications that 09.04.2007 should be the last date of submission of application form, as according to him the last date of submission of application form should have been one week prior to holding of Aam Sabha .

¶29

The submission made on behalf of the petitioner is wholly misconceived. A process of selection is governed by the terms of advertisement. It was clearly mentioned in the advertisement that 09.04.2007 was the last date of submission of application form and a person must hold the minimum eligibility qualification as on the last date of submission of application form.

¶30

I do not find any merit in this application. It is accordingly dismissed.

¶31

(Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J)

¶32

Rajesh/- U

Kumod Kumari alias Kumud Kumari v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kumod Kumari alias Kumud Kumari v. The State of Bihar

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

Manju Kumari Vs The State of Bihar

Rakesh Kumar Singh Vs The State of Bihar

Pramod Kumar Vs Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank

Dukha Das Vs The State of Bihar

Sanjay Kumar Singh Vs The State of Bihar

Chandra Kishor Prasad Vs The State of Bihar