In Letters Patent Appeal No.352 of 2021, the Patna High Court dismissed the appeal filed by a selected Anganwari candidate. The court held that there was no room for interference as the District Programme Officer found the Aam Sabha process flawed and the delay in appointment letters did not invalidate the panel.
Letters Patent Appeal stands dismissed.
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 Letters Patent Appeal No.352 of 2021 In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3033 of 2020
======================================================
Nirmala Kumari, W/o Radhakant Rai, R/o Village- Satghatta, P.O.Hanthwan, P.S.- Alauli, District- Khagaria.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
... ... Respondent/s
====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr.Sagar Suman, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. P.K. Shahi, AG ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)
Date : 19-10-2023
The appellant is the writ-petitioner, who is aggrieved with the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge. The issue concerns the selection of an Anganwari Sevika by the Aam Sabha . The appellant was selected and had also undergone training. The 7th respondent challenged the selection before the District Programme Officer (for brevity “DPO”), Khagaria. The
Patna High Court L.P.A No.352 of 2021 dt.19-10-2023 2/4
‘DPO’ having considered the facts found that the selection of the appellant was not proper and cancelled the appointment.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.352 of 2021 dt.19-10-2023 3/4
the discretion exercised. It was clearly found by the ‘DPO’ from the records produced that the issuance of notice by the Aam Sabha was not proper. As far as Rupam Kumari, the 7th respondent’s qualifications are concerned, an inquiry was made through the District Education Officer and it was found that it was obtained from a proper institution. In any event, the credentials of the 7th respondent is not very relevant, especially considering the various facts regarding improper convening of the Aam Sabha and the delayed issuance of the appointment letter.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.352 of 2021 dt.19-10-2023 4/4
in the writ petition and the appointment order was issued on 13.01.2016.
closed.
(K. Vinod Chandran, CJ)
(Rajiv Roy, J)
P.K.P./-
| AFR/NAFR | |
|---|---|
| CAV DATE | |
| Uploading Date | 30.10.2023 |
| Transmission Date |
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the decision of the learned Single Judge upholding the Aam Sabha process for selecting an Anganwari Sevika.
Whether the ten-month delay in issuing the appointment letter renders the selection process fatal despite the panel's one-year validity.
Nirmala Kumari
State of Bihar
Rupam Kumari
K. Vinod Chandran
Rajiv Roy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
