Patna High Court
Ragini KumariversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- PARTHA SARTHY
Holding
The writ application is dismissed as not pressed because the petitioner has withdrawn her request for relief.
Summary
The petitioner, Ragini Kumari, filed a writ petition seeking to quash a 5 December 2019 order that cancelled her selection as Anganwadi Sevika for Ward No. 11, Gram Panchayat Bankatwa, on the ground that she was not given any notice or opportunity of hearing and that the order ignored earlier communications and affidavits. She alleged violation of principles of natural justice and requested a fresh advertisement for the post. During the hearing, counsel for the petitioner informed the court that she no longer wished to pursue the writ application. Consequently, the court disposed of the petition as not pressed, without addressing the substantive merits of the alleged procedural irregularities.
Issues considered
- Whether the cancellation of the petitioner’s selection as Anganwadi Sevika without notice and hearing violates principles of natural justice.
- Whether the writ petition should be entertained when the petitioner withdraws her request for relief.
Subjects
- Writ petition
- Administrative law
- Natural justice
- Anganwadi Sevika selection
- Withdrawal of petition
- Cancellation of appointment
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.685 of 2022
======================================================
Ragini Kumari W/o Bablu Kumar Singh, Resident of Village - Bari Pakhai,
P.O. - Maijirwa, P.S. - Lakhora, District - East Champaran, Motihari.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Social Welfare
Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Principle Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Director, Integrated Child Development Scheme, Department of Social
Welfare, Govt. of Bihar at Patna.
4. The District Magistrate, District - East Champaran at Motihari.
5. The Senior Deputy Collector, District Legal Cell, East Champaran at
Motihari.
6. The District Programme Officer, District - East Champaran at Motihari.
7. The Child Development Project Officer, Bankatwa, East Champaran.
8. The Supervisor, Child Development Project, Bankatwa, District - East
Champaran.
9. The Gram Panchayat Raj, through its Secretary, Bankatwa, District - East
Champaran, Motihari.
10. Usha Kumari, Wife of Ramnath Kumar Paswan, Resident of Village - Bara
Pakahi, P.O. - Majirwa, P.S. - Lakhaura, District - East Champaran,
Motihari.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shantanu Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Smt. Kumari Amrita, GP3
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY
ORAL ORDER
4 10-04-2026 1. The petitioner has filed the instant application for
the following reliefs:
“1. That this writ application is being filed for
issuance of appropriate writ / order / direction
for quashing the order dated 05.12.2019, issued
under pen and signature of District Programme
Officer vide memo no. 4079 Dated 05.12.2019,
whereby the selection of the petitioner on the
Patna High Court CWJC No.685 of 2022(4) dt.10-04-2026
2/2
post of Anganbadi Sevika at Ward No. 11, Gram
Panchayat Bankatwa, East Champaran has been
cancelled and it has also been ordered to issue
fresh advertisement for the same post.
The order impugned has been passed
without Giving any single notice/ opportunity of
hearing to the petitioner and also ignoring all
the letters/ their own reports earlier sent to the
authorities and also against the affidavit filed
before Patna High Court by the answering
respondents themselves and also without
assigning any reason to controvert their on
findings earlier, for the reasons best known to
them.
Copy of order dated
05.12.2019, issued under
pen and signature of District
Programme Officer vide
memo no. 4079 Dated
05.12.2019 is annexed
herewith and marked as
Annexure-1 to this Writ
application.”
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner does not want to pursue the instant writ application
and as such the same may be disposed of as not pressed.
3. In view of the above, the application is disposed of
as not pressed.
(Partha Sarthy, J)
Bibhash/-
U
Checking your session…