Mamta Kumari Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajni Kant Jha, Adv Mr. Prisu Snehil, Adv For the Respondent/s : Mr. Avnish Nandan Sinha Mr. Hansraj, Adv ======================================================

¶17

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RITESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER

¶18

10 23-06-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶19

The present writ petition has been filed for the

¶20

following relief(s):-

¶21

“A. A writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, direction, quashing the order dated 16.08.2013 as contained in Memo No. 249 issued from the office or respondent No. 5 as contained in Annexure-7 to the writ application.

¶22

B. A writ in the nature of a mandamus or

¶23

Patna High Court CWJC No.23244 of 2013(10) dt.23-06-2026 2/4

¶24

any other appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, direction commanding the respondents not to give effect to the orders as contained in Annexure-7 to the writ application.

¶25

C. To any other relief/reliefs to which the petitioner may be found to be entitled to.”

¶26

At the outset, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the impugned order passed in miscellaneous (Anganbari) Appeal Case No. 108 of 2010-11 by the Collector, Bhagalpur on 26.07.2013 is wholly without jurisdiction since prior to passing of the order dated 26.07.2013, an amendment was made on 17.05.2013 with regard to hearing the cases related to the selection of Anganbari Sevika/Sahaiyka. He submits that as per the said amendment, an appeal against the order passed by the District Programme Officer is maintainable before the Deputy Director, Welfare or the person authorized by the Commissioner of the concerned division. He submits that since the amendment was carried out on 17.05.2013 and the order was passed by the Collector on 26.07.2013, therefore, the same is wholly without jurisdiction, since after coming into force of the amendment, the Collector was not competent authority to pass the order.

¶27

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

¶28

Patna High Court CWJC No.23244 of 2013(10) dt.23-06-2026 3/4

¶29

private respondent no. 7 and the State fairly submits that the fact remains that an amendment was carried out on 17.05.2013 and therefore, the matter should have been heard by the competent authority.

¶30

In view of the limited submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the view that the order passed by the Collector, Bhagalpur on 26.07.2013 in Miscellaneous (Anganbari) Appeal Case No. 108 of 2010-11 needs to be set aside and is accordingly set aside.

¶31

The matter is remitted back to the concerned authority to take a decision afresh in terms of the amendment carried out on 17.05.2013. The concerned authority who is competent to pass the necessary order, after giving notice to the concerned parties, including the petitioner and the respondent no. 7 and after hearing them will take a decision in accordance with law within a period of four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of the order.

¶32

It is clarified that memo no. 249 dated 16.08.2013 will abide by the fresh decision to be taken by the authority concerned, who is competent to take the decision in terms of amendment dated 17.05.2013.

¶33