JITU PRASAD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR
LAWS(PAT)-2021-4-18
HIGH COURT OF PATNA
Decided on April 29,2021

Jitu Prasad Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF BIHAR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

VIKASH JAIN,J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents through video conference. Learned counsel for the petitioners has filed an undertaking that all defects pointed out by the stamp reporter shall be removed, and compliance with the conditions of the notices of this Court with regard to acceptance of e-filing shall be made, without delay immediately upon resumption of normal physical functioning of the Court, and in any event within one month thereof.
(2.) The present writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs as formulated by the petitioners-- (i) Issuance of an appropriate order/direction/writ in the nature of certiorari quashing order dated 26.12.2018 passed in Complaint Case No.01 of 2018 issued vide Memo No.1261 by the Respondent NO-3 the District Public Grievance Redressal Officer- cum-the District Programme Officer, Nalanda at Bihasharif, whereby and where under the learned court has been pleased to appoint the Respondent NO-6 on the post of Aganbari Sevika violated the Rule-5 of the Aganbari Sevika/Sahayika, Margdarshika, 2016 where in Rule-5 it has been held that the candidate and her father in law should be in the same ward where anyone is happened to be appointed. Here, the Respondent NO-3 was said to have appointed the Respondent No.6 on the post of Aganbari Sevika in Ward No.10, despite the fact that the Respondent No.4 are happened to be in Ward No.8 and the same may be perused from the voter list. (ii) Issuance of an appropriate order/direction/writ commanding upon the Respondent No.2 the District Magistrate, Nalanda at Biharsharif to dispose of the Appeal Case No__________/ of 2019 expeditiously, which was filed on 24.01.2019 and since then the appeal is pending before the Respondent No-2 and till today the case number has not been allotted in this appeal. (iii) Any other relief/reliefs for which, the petitioners are entitled to in the facts and circumstances of the case.'
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondent no.6 has illegally been appointed on the post of Aganbari Sevika, in violation of Rule 5 of the Margdarshika, 2016. It is stated that the petitioner filed Complaint No. 01 of 2018 (Annexure-10) before District Public Grievance Redressal Officer-cum the District Programme Officer I.C.D.S. Nalanda at Biharsharif (respondent no.3) which was however dismissed by order dated 26.12.2018. Thereafter the petitioner filed an appeal before District Magistrate, Nalanda at Biharsharif on 24.01.2019 (Annexure-11), but the same remains pending.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.