IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.813 of 2009
In
(CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE 4700/2009)
Chinta Devi, wife of Sri Arbind Singh, resident of village- Sarosher,
P.O.- Khudra, P.S.- Dinara, District- Rohtas at Sasaram
..... Appellant-Petitioner
Versus
01. The State of Bihar
02. Director, Integrated Child Development Scheme, Government
of Bihar, Indira Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna
03. The collector, Rohtas at Sasaram
04. District Programme Officer, Rohtas at Sasaram
05. District Welfare Officer, Rohtas at Sasaram
06. Child Development Project Officer, Kochas, Rohtas, District-
Sasaram
07. The Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Raj, Narwar, P.S.-Dinara,
District- Rohtas at Sasaram
08. Smt. Meena Singh, Wife of Jit Narain Singh, Resident of
Village- Sarosher, Panchayat Marwar, P.S.-Dinara, District-
Rohtas
..... Respondents-Respondents
For the Appellant:- Mr. Anand Kumar Ojha, Advocate
For the State:- Mr. Sanat Kumar Mishra, AC to AAG-8
For the Respondent
No.8:- Mr. Ambernath Banerjee, Advocate
----------------------------------
04. 03.08.2011 The present L.P.A. is filed against the
order dated 16.04.2009 passed by the learned Single
Judge passed in C.W.J.C. No. 4700 of 2009 quashing
the order bearing Memo No. 988, dated 23.12.2008
Annexure-6 issued by the District Programme Officer,
Rohtas at Sasaram.
The grievance of the petitioner-appellant
2
herein was that her services as Anganwari Sewika was
terminated even after a period of four years at the
behest of the husband of respondent no.8, who was
not selected, on the ground that the appellant has
obtained IIIrd Class marks in Matriculation, where as
respondent no.8 has IInd Class marks. The learned
Single Judge has dismissed the said writ petition.
Aggrieved by the same this L.P.A. has been filed.
Even though contention was sought to be
raised before us with regard to the fact that the
respondent no.8 was not selected at the time of
appointment hence, the appellant was appointed on
that post even after a period of four years her services
were terminated, but prima facie, we are of the
opinion that the service of the appellant was
terminated at the behest of a complaint filed by
husband of respondent no.8 even after a period of four
years which according to us is belated one and also
the husband of respondent no.8 can not be termed as
aggrieved person as the complaint has not been
animated from respondent no.8 if at all he is the
aggrieved person by selection of the appellant herein.
Under the aforesaid circumstances we are
of the opinion that the complaint itself is not
maintainable for the above reasons, we set aside the
3
order bearing Memo No. 988, dated 23.12.2008
contained inAnnexure-6 passed by the learned Single
Judge and accordingly allowed the L.P.A.
It is submitted by the leaned counsel for the
State that the post which has fallen vacant after
termination of the appellant has to be filled up by
third party.
Under the above circumstances, we are
of the opinion that the appellant and respondent
no.8 can be granted liberty to apply afresh as and
when vacancy arose and their cases shall be
considered in accordance with Rules without being
influenced by any observation made by the learned
Single Judge or by this Court.
(T. Meena Kumari, J.)
(Vikash Jain, J.)
P.K.