Khushbu Kumari Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7505 of 2017

====================================================== Khushbu Kumari wife of Sanjay Kumar Resident of Village - Bajitpur, Post Police Station - Bajitpur, District - Sitamarhi.

¶3

... ... Petitioner/s

¶4

Versus

¶5

The State of Bihar through its Director, Integrated Child Development Scheme, Bihar, Patna.

¶6

The Collector, Sitamarhi.

¶7

The District Programme Officer, Sitamarhi.

¶8

The Child Development Project Officer, Bajpatti, District - Sitamarhi.

¶9

The Block Education Officer, Bajpatti, District - Sitamarhi.

¶10

... ... Respondent/s

¶11

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Uday Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. S.K. Mandal, SC- 3 Mr. Bipin Kumar, AC to SC- 3 ======================================================

¶12

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY

¶13

ORAL ORDER

¶14

3 13-02-2026

¶15

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

¶16

counsel for the respondents.

¶17

The petitioner has filed the instant application for

¶18

the following reliefs:

¶19

“ 1. (i) For issuance of appropriate writ in the nature of Mandamus seeking direction to respondents to appoint the petitioner upon the post of Anganbari Sevika at Anganbari Centre No. 25, Ward No. 11 for which merit list was prepared and petitioner was found only candidate applied from Ward No. 11

¶20

Patna High Court CWJC No.7505 of 2017(3) dt.13-02-2026

¶21

2/4

¶22

and others were not found suitable as they were outsider from maping register but even then respondents are not appointing her for the reason best known to them.

¶23

(ii) For issuance of appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus seeking direction to respondents to complete the selection process on the basis of maping done for Ward No. 11, Centre No. 25 for which letter No. 1407 dated 27.08.2016 was issued from District Programme Officer, Sitamarhi to Child Development Project Officer, Bajpatti but inspite of such instruction selection has not been completed.

¶24

(iii) For any other relief or reliefs for which the petitioner is entitled for. ”

¶25

It is the case of the petitioner that pursuant to the respondents coming out with an advertisement on 22.7.2016, the petitioner being eligible in all respects for the post of Anganbari Sevika, applied for appointment on ward no.11 of centre no.25 in gram panchayat Raj Bajitpur, block Bajpatti, district Sitamarhi. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner in reference to Annexure-P2 that in the merit list prepared, the

¶26

Patna High Court CWJC No.7505 of 2017(3) dt.13-02-2026 3/4

¶27

name of the petitioner figured at serial no.7 and out of the nine empaneled candidates, she was the only one selected for ward no.11.

¶28

In reference to the documents brought on record including Annexure-P3 which happens to be the letter dated 27.8.2016 written by the District Programme Officer, Sitamarhi as also the letter dated 2.2.2017 of the Child Development Project Officer, Bajpatti and the statements made in the counter affidavit and more particularly paragraph no.6(ix) thereof, learned counsel submits that the aam sabha could not take place as a result of the apprehension of nuisance being created by the anti social elements.

¶29

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents be directed to appoint the petitioner, she being the only candidate as per the merit list prepared for ward no.11.

¶30

In response, it is submitted by learned counsel for the respondents that he has no further instructions in the matter except for the statement made in the counter affidavit of the process of selection not having been completed in view of the aam sabha not taking place as a result of apprehension of nuisance being created by the anti social elements.

¶31

In view of the facts and circumstances of the case,

¶32

Patna High Court CWJC No.7505 of 2017(3) dt.13-02-2026 4/4

¶33

the writ application is disposed off directing the respondents specially the Collector, Sitamarhi (respondent no.2) and the Child Development Project Officer, Bajpatti, district Sitamarhi (respondent no.4) to take the selection which was started with advertisement made on 22.7.2016 for appointment of Anganbari Sevika in ward no.11, centre no.25 of gram panchayat Raj Bajitpur, block Bajpatti in the district of Sitamarhi to its logical conclusion within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

¶34

The writ application stands disposed off.

¶35

(Partha Sarthy, J)

¶36

sauravkrsinha/-

¶37

U

Khushbu Kumari v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Khushbu Kumari v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Uday Shankar Pathak Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Nasima Khatoon Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Lakhan Paswan Vs The State of Bihar

Gyan Gourav Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Sanju Devi Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Smt Ranjana Kumari Vs The State of Bihar