Usha Kumari vs The State Of Bihar & Anr. on 18 October, 2011

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                         Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.4856 of 2010
              Usha Kumari, D/o Ramjee Sharma, wife of Shri Ramanand Sharma,
              resident of village and P.O. Banwaria, P.S. Hulasganj, District
              Jehanabad                                ...                  Petitioner
                                                 Versus
              1. The State Of Bihar through Sri Anup Mukherji, Chief Secretary,
                  Govt. of Bihar, Patna
              2. Smt. Palka Sahni, D/o and W/o of not known to the petitioner,
                  District Magistrate, Jehanabad        ...              Opp.Parties
                                    ----------------------------------

3. 18.10.2011 Heard Mr. Dinu Kumar, learned counsel for the

petitioner and the counsel for the State.

A show cause reply has been filed by the Collector

of Jehanabad District and he is also present in person. From the

reading of the show cause reply and its Annexures containing the

order passed by him contained in Memo No. 710 dated 15.10.2011

it becomes clear that the order of this Court as with regard to

passing of the reasoned order on the representation of the

petitioner has been complied, though belatedly. The explanation of

the Collector of Jehanabad District in this regard is that the order

of this Court was not made available to him earlier by the

petitioner alongwith the representation and only after getting a

copy of the contempt application he could know of the directions

given in the order dated 19.11.2009 in C.W.J.C.No. 14603/2006,

the relevant portion whereof reads as follows:

“In the opinion of this Court once the Collector has
been made the prescribed authority in the circulars
with regard to selection and appointment on the post
of Anganwari Sevika, if any complaint with regard
to selection/ appointment is made by any person the
same has to be looked into by the Collector. There is
no counter affidavit by the respondent State which
2

could have shortened the process of litigation. This
Court is also not in a position to have the stand of the
respondent no.7. This is the opinion of this Court
keeping the writ application pending will not serve
any purpose, inasmuch as the someone has still to do
the exercise of fact finding.

In that view of the matter, this Court would
dispose of the writ application with a liberty to the
petitioner to file a representation as against the
selection and appointment of respondent no.7 and in
the event such a representation is filed by the
petitioner alongwith a copy of this order, the
Collector of Jehanabad District will be under
obligation to decide the same in accordance with law
after affording opportunity of personal hearing to the
petitioner, respondent no.7 and the representative of
the Gram Panchayat concerned. Such exercise
however must be completed within a period of six
months from the date of receipt/ production of a
copy of this order.”

Considering the nature of the order and the stand

taken by the Collector in his show cause reply there would be no

need to go further beyond recording the only aspect that the

direction given by this Court in the connected writ application, as

quoted above, has been complied.

This application is, accordingly, disposed of with a
liberty to the petitioner to seek appropriate remedy, if any, before
the appropriate forum in accordance with law.

The personal appearance of the Collector of
Jehanabad District is dispensed with.

(Mihir Kumar Jha,J.)

Surendra/
3