Disposed

Sangita Devi @ Sangita Kumari v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC7 Jan 2020CWJC/20652/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition concerning the appointment of an Anganbari Sevika, the Patna High Court directed the District Programme Officer, Gaya, to expeditiously decide the petitioner's pending application challenging a selection made in violation of mapping panji rules. The Court mandated a four-week deadline and required hearing all parties.

What did the court decide?

Directing the District Programme Officer to decide the pending application within four weeks, ensuring all parties are heard.

Sangita Devi @ Sangita Kumari Vs The State of Bihar — Education and Admissions | Patna HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.20652 of 2019

¶2

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

¶3

Sangita Devi @ Sangita Kumari Wife of Ranjan Kumar Yadav, Resident of Mohalla-Naya Bazar, Bhui Tola, Ward No.4, Panchayat Sherghati, P.S.Sherghati, District - Gaya

¶4

... ... Petitioner/s

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Bihar through Principal secretary, Social Welfare Department, Patna.

¶7

The Director, ICDS, Social Welfare Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

¶8

District Magistrate, Gaya.

¶9

District Programme Officer, Gaya.

¶10

Child Development Project Officer, Sherghati, District-Gaya.

¶11

Guriya Kumari Wife of Sunil Kumar, Resident of Village-Kadwan, Panchayat-Chitao, Block-Sherghati, P.S.-Sherghati, District-Gaya.

¶12

... ... Respondent/s

¶13

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

¶14

Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Suraj Narain Yadav Mr. Nikhilesh Kumar For the State : Mr. Gyan Shankar, A.C. to G.P.-2 ======================================================

¶15

CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA MISHRA ORAL ORDER

¶16

2 07-01-2020 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

¶17

counsel appearing on behalf of the State.

¶18

This is a classic case where the grievances of the petitioner have been hanging in balance before the District Programme Officer, Gaya. The issue at hands relates to the appointment of Anganbari Sevika in different Pariyojna and Panchayat of Gaya District and the petitioner being an applicant had challenged the appointment of Respondent No. 6 (Guriya

¶19

Patna High Court CWJC No.20652 of 2019(2) dt.07-01-2020 2/3

¶20

Kumari) as she did not belong to the mapping panji of Anganbari Centre and, therefore, was not legally entitled to be engaged as an Anganbari Sevika.

¶21

It is submitted that the selection of the Respondent No. 6 was challenged as per the Government Circulars as she could not have taken the benefit and been a candidate of Anganbari Sevika, but the petition filed before District Programme Officer, Gaya on 12.01.2019 has remained lingering and her selection on the post of Anganbari Sevika has not yet been cancelled. It is further submitted that on account of want of interest by the District Programme Officer, Gaya, the issue has been lingering which is causing serious prejudice to the present petitioner.

¶22

Having considered the grievance of the petitioner, this Court directs that the petitioner’s application dated 12.01.2019 pending before the District Programme Officer, Gaya (Respondent No. 4) be taken up expeditiously and the same be decided in accordance with law positively within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

¶23

It is made clear that while doing so, the concerned authority shall hear all the parties.

¶24

Patna High Court CWJC No.20652 of 2019(2) dt.07-01-2020 3/3

¶25

The application stands consigned.

¶26

(Anjana Mishra, J)

¶27

Saif/-

¶28

Sangita Devi @ Sangita Kumari v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sangita Devi @ Sangita 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

Most. Sanju Devi Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

M/s Gee Pee Furniture (New) Vs The Central Board of Trustees

Dulko Devi and Ors. Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.

Rukamini Devi Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Pritam Singh Vs The State of Bihar

Sangita Kumari, Vs The State of Bihar.