AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
10 paragraphs · 213 wordsHeard learned counsel for the parties.
State counsel accepts notice for respondents Nos. 1 to 6.
Service of notice to 7th respondent stands dispensed since no adverse order is being passed in the present petition.
In the instant petition, petitioner has prayed for the following relief/reliefs:
“(i) For directing the respondent authorities to enquire into the wrong selection of Respondent No. 7, who has been selected as Anganwari Sevika of Gram Panchayat, Harira, Ward No. 9, under Block-Kursa Kanta, District- Araria and also to hold the said selection of Respondent No. 7 to be bad, illegal and contrary to the guidelines laid down for such appointments.
(ii) For directing consequently the respondent authorities to appoint the petitioner in place of Respondent No. 7 as Anganwari Sevika in said Panchayat.
(iii) For any other relief or reliefs for which the petitioner may be found entitled in the facts and circumstances of the case.”
Petitioner’s appeal/representation (Annexure-6) is pending consideration before the appellate authority.
Therefore, the appellate authority is hereby directed to decide the petitioner’s appeal/representation within a period of four months from the date of receipt of this order after due hearing of petitioner and 7th Respondent – Savita Kumari.
Accordingly, the instant petition stands disposed off.