ASHA KUMAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD counsel for the petitioner, counsel for respondent no. 8 as also counsel for the State.

(2.) PRAYER of the petitioner in this writ application reads as follows: ''

(3.) THE respondent no. 8 on the other hand has filed a counter affidavit, wherein she has enclosed a document to show that father -in -law of the petitioner, namely, Brahmdeo Mahto was a retired ADHINAYAK ANUSEVAK in the office of Bihar Home Guards and his date of retirement was 31.8.2007. Counsel for Respondent No. 8 on the basis of the aforesaid documents submits that the said father -in -law of the petitioner working as an Instructor in the Home Guard was actually Government servant which would also become clear from the information sought by respondent no. 8 and its reply furnished by the authority under the Right to Information Act vide Annexure -B to the counter affidavit wherein it was stated that father -in -law of the petitioner was also receiving a monthly pension of Rs. 5,204/ - as payable to any other Government servant. The counsel for the respondent no. 8 has thus taken a firm stand that the petitioner was not eligible for being appointed as Anganbari Sevika.