High Court Patna High Court - Orders

Renu Sinha vs The State Of Bihar &Amp; Ors on 8 November, 2010

Patna High Court – Orders
Renu Sinha vs The State Of Bihar &Amp; Ors on 8 November, 2010
                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CWJC No.4847 of 2010
1. RENU SINHA W/O SRI NAGENDRA PD. NIRALA R/O VILL.- HARI
NARAYANPUR, P.O.- ASARHI, P.S.- NARDIGANJ, DISTT.- NAWADA
                                     Versus
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH SECRETARY DEPTT. OF WELFARE, GOVT.
OF BIHAR, PATNA
2. DIRECTOR, WELFARE GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA
3. THE COLLECTOR NAWADA
4. THE DISTRICT PROGRAMME OFFICER NAWADA
5. THE C.D.P.O. NARDIGANJ AT AND P.O.- NARDIGANJ, P.S.-
NARDIGANJ, DISTT.- NAWADA
6. MUKHIYA GRAM PANCHAYAT KAHUWARA, P.S.- NARDIGANJ, DISTT.-
NAWADA
7. THE PANCHAYAT SECRETARY GRAM PANCHAYAT KAHUARA NARDIGANJ,
DISTT.- NAWADA
8. KAUSHALYA KUMARI W/O RAM CHANDRA PD. CHAKRABORTY R/O VILL.-
HARI NARAYANPUR, P.O.- ASARHI, P.S.- NARDIGANJ, DISTT.- NAWADA
                                  -----------

2/ 08/11/2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and

learned counsel for the State.

The petitioner was an applicant for the post of

Angan Bari Sevika at the Angan Bari Centre, Hari

Narayanpur, P.O. Asarhi, P.S. Nardiganj, district-

Nawadah along with respondent No.8. The latter came to

be selected which was questioned by the petitioner before

the District Programme Officer. The District Programme

Officer by his order dated 30.3.2009 held the

appointment of respondent No.8 to be bad and directed

the appointment of the petitioner who is stated to have

been at serial No.2 of the merit list. When nothing has

transpired with regard to her appointment the writ

application has been filed.

-2-

Learned counsel for the State rightly points out

that issues of eligibility/ineligibility for appointment are

matters to be examined by the District Magistrate

himself. It is not known whether respondent No.8 has

questioned the order of the District Programme Officer or

whether it has attained finality. In what manner the

District Magistrate shall be required to proceed shall

necessarily encompass any challenge made by

respondent No.8 to the order of the District Programme

Officer before a competent court and what orders may

have been passed therein.

The application is disposed with the direction

that only if the petitioner files a representation within 30

days from today before the District Magistrate, let him

decide the issues in accordance with law after hearing all

concerned, including respondent No.8 by a reasoned and

speaking order within a maximum period of four months

from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order

before him.

The writ application stands disposed.

KC                               ( Navin Sinha, J.)