Patna High Court
Pooja Kumari vs The State Of Bihar Through The ... on 17 February, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7516 of 2021
======================================================
Pooja Kumari, Wife of Birendra Kumar Singh, resident of Village Bankara,
Panchayat Patharabari, Ward No. 12, block Jokihat, Police Statiojn-Jokkihat,
District Araria.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Social Welfare
Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The District Magistrate, Araria.
3. The District Programme Officer, Araria.
4. The Child Development Project Officer, Jokkihat, District Araria cum
Deputy Chairman, Selection Committee, Araria.
5. The Block Development Officer, Jokkihat-cum-Chairman, Selection
Committee, Araria.
6. Mahila Supervisor-cum-Secretary, Selection Committee, Araria.
7. Nalisa Kumari, wife of Bidyanand Mandal, resident of Village Bankara,
Panchayat Patharabari, Ward No. 12, block Jokkihat, Police Station Jokihat,
District Araria.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ravindra Nath Dubey
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Lalit Kishore (Ag)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 17-02-2022
The matter is heard via video conferencing due to
circumstances prevailing on account of the COVID-19 pandemic.
2. State counsel accepts notice for respondent Nos. 1 to 6.
3. Service of notice to 7th respondent is dispensed since no
adverse order is passed.
4. In the instant petition, petitioner has prayed for the
following relief/reliefs:
Patna High Court CWJC No.7516 of 2021 dt.17-02-2022
"That this writ application is being filed for
issuance of writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions for
quashing the appointment letter in favour of the Respondent
No. 7 dated 23.1.2021 issued under the signature of
Respondent No. 6 in illegal manner because the name of the
petitioner in final merit list is at serial no. 2 and the name of
the Respondent No. 7 in the final merit list is at serial no. 4 but
ignoring the merit of the petitioner, the Respondent No. 7 has
been appointed illegally and further direct the Respondent
Nos. 2 and 3 to examine the matter and direct the Respondent
No. 4 to appoint the petitioner because the petitioner's name is
at serial no. 2 and Respondent No. 7's name is at serial no. 4
in the final merit list and further direct the respondents to
allow the petitioner to join on the post of Anganbari Sevika of
Ward No. 12, Patharabari Panchayat, District Araria and
further for any other relief or reliefs as the petitioner is found
legally entitled to in the facts and circumstances of the case
for the ends of justice."
5. The petitioner without exhausting statutory remedy of
appeal presented this petition and petition is premature in view of the
Apex Court decision in the case of State of Jammu and Kashmir
V/s. R.K.Zalpuri and others reported in AIR 2016 SC 3006,
Paragraph-20 which is held as under:
"20. Having stated thus, it is useful to refer to a passage
from City and Industrial Development Corporation V/s.Dosu
Aardeshir Bhiwandiwala and others {(2009) 1 SCC 168},
wherein this Court while dwelling upon jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution, has expressed thus:-
"The Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226
is duty-bound to consider whether:
(a) Adjudication of writ petition involves any complex and
disputed question of facts and whether they can be
satisfactorily resolved;
(b) The petition reveals all material facts;
Patna High Court CWJC No.7516 of 2021 dt.17-02-2022
(c) The petitioner has any alternative or effective remedy for
the resolution of the dispute;
(d) Person invoking the jurisdiction is guilty of unexplained
delay and laches;
(e) Ex facie barred by any laws of limitation;
(f) Grant of relief is against public policy or barred by any
valid law; and host of other factors"
6. In view of the aforesaid decision present petition is
premature and not entertainable, therefore, the petitioner is at liberty
to prefer appeal before the concerned Appellate Authority within a
period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of this order. If such
appeal is preferred by the petitioner, the same shall be considered
after giving ample opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as
7th respondent - Nalisa Kumari. Such exercise shall be completed
within a period of three months from the date of receipt of appeal.
7. Accordingly, writ petition stands disposed off.
(P. B. Bajanthri, J)
GAURAV S./-
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE
Uploading Date
Transmission Date
Underline Emphasized
