PINKI KUMARI @ HIRA DEVI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the State and Respondent No. 9.

(2.) It is submitted that the petitioner was selected as an Angan Bari Sevika by the Aam Sabha. It was questioned by Respondent No. 9. The District Magistrate on 12.3.2009 wrongly set aside the appointment. The appellate authority erred in rejecting the appeal on 30.8.2009. The attention of the Court is invited to its order dated 13.8.2010 noticing the defence that the petitioner and her husband both had an alias name which did not find adequate discussion in the impugned orders. The Court had required the respondents to file a counter affidavit disclosing if any enquiry had been held on this aspect. The official respondents have not answered this question. The impugned orders are therefore not sustainable.

(3.) Learned counsel for the respondents supported the impugned orders urging that the finding is that the Aam Sabha which selected the petitioner was not held in accordance with law. There was no irregularity in the Aam Sabha which selected respondent no. 9. Reliance is further placed on a Division Bench order in L.P.A. No. 772 of 2011.