IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.1355 of 2011
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 18930 of 2010
======================================================
Sneh Prabha, W/o Manoj Prasad, R/O Village- Kajichak, P.S.- Rajauli,
District- Nawadah.
.... .... Respondent/Appellant
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Welfare Department, Old
Secretariat, Patna
2. The Commissioner, Magadh Division, Gaya
3. The District Magistrate, Gaya
4. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Rajauli, Nawada
5. The Child Development Project Officer Block - Rajauli, P.O. & P.S.-
Rajauli, District-Nawada
6. The Gram Panchayat Amawan West P.S.- Rajauli, District- Nawada
through its Secretary, Gram Panchayat
7. The Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Amawan (Amawan) West, P.O.- Bansh
Gopal, P.S.- Rajauli, District - Nawada
..... .........Respondents/Respondents
8. Sanju Kumari @ Sanju Devi ,W/O Sunil Prasad, R/O Village- Kajichak,
P.O.- Bansh Gopal, P.S.- Rajauli, District- Nawada
.... .... Petitioner/Respondent
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Raj Kishore Prasad
Mr. Tej Bahadur Roy, Advocate.
For the Respondent No. 1 to 5: Mr. Arvind Ujjwal S.C. 25.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA
ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)
3 30-09-2011 Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order dated
25th March 2011 passed by the learned single Judge in above
CWJC NO. 18930 of 2010, the respondent no. 8 has preferred the
present Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent.
The matter at dispute is the appointment of the
appellant as Anganwari Sevika.
It is an admitted fact that the writ petitioner had
2 Patna High Court LPA No.1355 of 2011 (3) dt.30-09-2011
2/2
higher marks than the respondent no. 8. According to the
procedure set out, it was the writ petitioner who had right to be
appointed over the respondent no. 8. The learned single Judge has
upheld the challenge to the appointment of the appellant.
No case for interference is made out. Appeal is
dismissed in limine.
(R.M. Doshit, CJ)
Sujit/- (Birendra Prasad Verma, J)