Patna High Court
Shabista Begam vs The State Of Bihar on 18 February, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9609 of 2021
======================================================
Shabista Begam W/o Tahzeeb Alam Resident of Village- Dhangarha, Samiti
Tola, P.O. Dhangarha P.S.- Korhobarhi, District- Kishanganj.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar Bihar
2. Secretary cum Commissioner, Social Welfare Department, Government of
Bihar.
3. Director, Social Welfare Department, Integrated Child Development
Services (I.C.D.S.), Directorate
4. District Programme Officer (I.C.D.S.) Collectorate, Kishanganj.
5. Child Development Programme Officer, Dighalbank Block, Kishanganj.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjesh Kumar Singh
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Lalit Kishore (AG)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 18-02-2022
The matter has been heard via video conferencing
due to circumstances prevailing on account of the COVID-19
pandemic.
In the instant petition, petitioner has prayed for the
following relief/reliefs:
"This is an application on
behalf of the petitioner for
quashing/setting aside the order dated
19.12.2020 passed/issued by the
District Programme Officer, (Zila
Patna High Court CWJC No.9609 of 2021 dt.18-02-2022
Programme Padadhikari),
Kishanganj, by which the District
Programme Officer, Kishanganj, has
removed the petitioner from the post
of Aanganbadi Sevika, Aanganbadi
Kendra, Dhangarha Samittee Tola,
Kendra Sankhya 104, Dhangarha
Panchayat District-Kishanganj.
Further, for a direction to the
respondents, particularly to
respondent no.4, to reinstate the
petitioner on the post she has been
removed (Chayanmukt) from."
The petitioner without exhausting statutory remedy
of appeal presented this petition and petition is not maintainable
in view of the Apex Court decision in the case of State of
Jammu and Kashmir Vs. 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 Vs. Dosu
Aardeshir Bhiwandiwala and others {(2009)
Patna High Court CWJC No.9609 of 2021 dt.18-02-2022
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;
(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".
Patna High Court CWJC No.9609 of 2021 dt.18-02-2022
In view of the aforesaid decision, the present
petition is premature, therefore, the petitioner is at liberty to
prefer appeal before the 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 appellate authority is hereby
directed to decide the petitioner's appeal after giving ample
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Such exercise shall be
completed within a period of three months from the date of
receipt of the petitioner's appeal.
Accordingly, writ petition stands disposed of.
(P. B. Bajanthri, J)
Ankit/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 23.02.2022
Transmission Date NA
