RENU SINHA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Suraj Narain Yadav, learned Advocate representing the appellant and Mr. Abhay Shankar Singh, learned Advocate for respondent no.8. The State is represented by Mr. Gyan Prakash Ojha, learned GA-7.

(2.) The challenge in the present Letters Patent Appeal is to an order/judgment of this Court dtd. 27/9/2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 13210 of 2014 whereby the learned Court has been pleased to allow the writ petition and strike down Clause 4.9 of the amended Guidelines dtd. 19/12/2013. The learned Court further set aside the appointment of the writ petitioner-appellant herein, who was holding the post of Angabari Sevika and directed to issue order of appointment in favour of private respondent no.8 herein.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the appellant, assailing the impugned order/judgment, inter alia, submitted that the learned Single Judge has committed serious error of law in striking down the amended provision of Clause 4.9 of the Guidelines issued for selection of Anganbari Sevika/Sahaika, as the writ petition was filed by ignoring the provisions prescribed in Rule 10 of 2011 Guidelines, which prescribed that any complaint against the selection of Anganbari Sevika could be filed before the District Programme Officer. Persons aggrieved by the order of the District Programme Officer, had the remedy of appeal before the Deputy Director, Welfare Department. However, despite having efficacious alternative remedy, the learned Court instead of relegating the matter to the appropriate authority adjudicated the matter and passed the impugned order.