The High Court held the writ petition premature and disposed of the matter. The Court observed that the petitioner had not exhausted the statutory remedy of appeal as required by the Supreme Court, directing her to file an appeal first.
Petitioner directed to prefer appeal before appellate authority within eight weeks; petition disposed of.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6783 of 2021
======================================================
Rachana Kumari Wife of Hemant Kumar Singh, Resident of Village - Madhavpur, P.O. - Madhavpur, P.S. - Parbatta, District - Khagaria.
... ... Petitioner/s
... ... Respondent/s
====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Durga Nand Jha For the Respondent/s : Mr. ======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 22-02-2022
Heard the learned counsels for the parties.
“(i) Issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the letter no. 189 dated 29.02.2020 issued under the signature
Patna High Court CWJC No.6783 of 2021 dt.22-02-2022 2/4
of Mahila Paryavikshika, Beldaur District Khagaria wherebyy and whereunder Respondent no. 9 has been shown to have been selected for the post of Aganwari Sevika for Aganwari centre no. 263, ward 5 of Madhavpur Panchayat without appreciating that Respondent no. 9 does not come in the category of dense population and no mapping record was produced in the meeting held on 23.10.2019 and meeting was postponed on 23.10.2019.
(ii) Issuance of a consequential writ in the nature of Mandamus directing and commanding the Respondents to hold a general public meeting a fresh and pursuant to advertisement as also on the basis of mapping survey register, the Petitioner be selected on the Post of Anganwari Sevika in ward no 5 centre no 263 under Gram Panchayat Madhavpur being the highest marks holder amongst dense populated general category.
(iii) Issuance of an appropriate holding ans declaration that since no general public meeting of ward no. 5, Gram Panchayat Madhavpur could be concluded on 23.10.2019 and inspite of repeated requests no adjourned meeting could be held, any selection of Respondent -9 without holding general public meeting and without considering the mapping is out and out bad in law and is violative of provisions of Margdarshika 2019 and thus said selection is fit to be quashed.
(iv) Issuance of an appropriate holding that had any general public meeting could be held after 23.10.2019, there would have been no occasion to furnish the copy of proceeding dated 23.10.2019 only in August 2020 under RTI vide letter dated 10.06.2020 and had respondent no. 9 could have selected on 23.10.2019. there would have been no occasion for lady supervisor to issue selection letter to Respondent No. 9 on 29.02.2020(after objection by petitioner on
Patna High Court CWJC No.6783 of 2021 dt.22-02-2022 3/4
18.02.2020) after more than four months and thus selection of Respondent no. 9 is illegal, malicious and bad in law and is fit to be quashed and petitioner is fit to be selected being the candidate form General Category which is densely populated, and even advertisement waş for General Category and same is required to be produced by the Respondents.
(v) Any other relief of reliefs be granted to petitioner to which she is found to be entitled to:”
“20. Having stated thus, it is useful to refer to a passage from City and Industrial Development Corporation V. Dosu Aardeshir Bhiwandiwala and Others, wherein this Court while dwelling upon jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, has expressed thus:-
“The Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 if duty-bound to consider whether:
(a) adjudication of writ petition involves any complex and disputed questions of facts and whether they can be satisfactorily resolved;
(b) the petition reveals all material facts;
(c) the petitioner has any alternative or effective remedy for the resolution of the dispute;
Patna High Court CWJC No.6783 of 2021 dt.22-02-2022 4/4
(d) person invoking the jurisdiction is guilty of unexplained delay and laches;
(e) ex facie barred by any laws of limitation;
(f) grant of relief is against public policy or barred by any valid law; and host of other factors.”
(P. B. Bajanthri, J)
rakhi/-
| AFR/NAFR |
|---|
| CAV DATE |
| Uploading Date |
| Transmission Date |
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a writ petition under Article 226 can be entertained when the petitioner has an alternative statutory remedy of appeal?
Whether the High Court is precluded from entertaining the petition due to non-exhaustion of the statutory remedy of appeal?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Jammu and Kashmir V. R.K. ZalpuriReferred¶34
State of Jammu and Kashmir V. R.K. Zalpuri, AIR 2016 SC 3006 · Who else cites this
City and Industrial Development Corporation V. Dosu Aardeshir Bhiwandiwala and OthersReferred¶35
City and Industrial Development Corporation V. Dosu Aardeshir Bhiwandiwala and Others, AIR 2016 SC
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Rachana Kumari
State of Bihar
District Magistrate, Khagaria
District Programme Officer, Khagaria
Child Development Project Officer, Parbatta
Panchayat Member, Ward No. 5
P. B. Bajanthri
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
