Petitioner sought appointment as Anganbari Sevika and restraint of respondent 8. High Court held petition premature as statutory remedy to Appellate Authority remains unexhausted.
Petition disposed; liberty reserved to prefer appeal before Appellate Authority within 8 weeks.
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.7641 of 2021
======================================================
Anjan Kumari Wife of Dinesh Kumar resident of Village - Sirsa Ghasi, Police Station- Lalganj in the district of Vaishali.
... ... Petitioner/s
... ... Respondent/s
====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ranjeet Kumar For the Respondent/s : Mr. Smt. Kumari Amrita (GP-3) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 10-02-2022
The matter is heard via video conferencing due to circumstances prevailing on account of the COVID-19 pandemic.
State counsel accepts notice for respondent nos. 1 & 2. Service of notice to respondent no. 8, Pinky Sahni stands dispensed with since no adverse order is passed against her.
In the present petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:-
Patna High Court CWJC No.7641 of 2021 dt.10-02-2022 2/3
“ (i) To direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for her appointment/selection to the post of Anganbari Sevika as an eligible candidate at Anganbari Centre No. 251 i.e. Sirsa Ghasi in Sirsa Biran Panchyat under Lalganj Block in the district of Vaishali.
(ii) Also to direct the respondents to restrain the respondent no. 8 from work as Anganbari Sevi at Anganbari Centre No. 251 under Lalganj Block in the district of Vaishali. (iii) Also to allow the petitioner to work as Anganbari Sevika at Anganbari Centre No. 251 under Lalganj Block in the district of Vaishali.
(iv) Also for any other relief/reliefs for which the petitioner is found to be entitled in the eye of law.”
Undisputedly, petitioner has stated to statutory remedy before the Appellate Authority. In the light of Hon’ble Apex Court decision in the case of State of Jammu and Kashmir Vs.
R.K. Zalpuri and others reported in AIR 2016 Supreme Court 3006 held as under:-
“20. Having stated thus, it 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 is duty-bound to consider whether:
(a) adjudication of writ petition involves any complex
Patna High Court CWJC No.7641 of 2021 dt.10-02-2022 3/3
and disputed questions of facts and whether they can be satisfactorily resolved;
unexplained delay and laches:
The present petition is premature, accordingly, the petition stands disposed of, reserving liberty to the petitioner to prefer an appeal before the Appellate Authority within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
In the event of filing of such appeal, the Appellate Authority is hereby directed to provide ample opportunity for hearing to the petitioner and Respondent No.8, Pinki Sahni and proceed to decide the appeal within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of appeal to be filed by the petitioner.
(P. B. Bajanthri, J)
kamlesh/-
| AFR/NAFR | NA |
|---|---|
| CAV DATE | NA |
| Uploading Date | 16.02.2022 |
| Transmission Date | NA |
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petition for appointment to the post of Anganbari Sevika is premature before approaching the Appellate Authority.
Whether the petitioner has an alternative effective remedy for the resolution of the dispute regarding selection.
Whether the grant of relief sought is barred considering the existence of statutory appellate remedy.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Jammu & Kashmir v. R.K. ZalpuriApplied
State of Jammu & Kashmir v. R.K. Zalpuri (AIR 2016 Supreme Court 3006) · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Anjan Kumari
The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Social Welfare, Government of Bihar, Patna
Pinky Sahni
P. B. Bajanthri
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
