PATNA, India, July 18 -- Patna High Court issued the following judgment on July 10:
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.
2. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing Letter No. 208 dated 13.02.2015, issued by respondent No.4, namely, the District Programme Officer, Darbhanga, in Anganbari Case No. 117/2013-14, as well as the order dated 16.05.2018 passed by respondent No.3, namely, the Collectorcum-District Magistrate, Darbhanga, in Anganbari Case No. 149/2015.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the name of respondent No.6 has been wrongly inserted in the mapping panji, and although the Aam Sabha has acknowledged the incorrect entry, but both the District Programme Officer and the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Darbhanga have passed orders adverse to the petitioner. He further submits that respondent No.6 has allegedly inserted her name in the mapping panji by fraudulent means and has unlawfully derived benefit therefrom.
4. In response, learned counsel for the State submits that while the recommendation of the Aam Sabha is necessary for selection of Anganbari Sevika/Sahayika, the Aam Sabha does not have the jurisdiction to make corrections in the mapping panji, which falls under the domain of other competent authorities.
5. In view of the aforesaid submissions and considering the facts of the case, this Court is of the view that no relief can be granted to the petitioner at this stage. The petitioner shall be entitled to seek appropriate relief only after the correction of the mapping panji, if the same is found to be incorrect.
6. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed off.
7. However, liberty is hereby granted to the petitioner to pursue appropriate remedy for correction in the mapping panji before the competent authority. After such correction, if so made, the petitioner shall be at liberty to challenge the process of appointment in accordance with law.
Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.
