Smt. Indu Devi v. The State Of Bihar
Judgment
.... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Manish Kumar No-2 For the Respondent/s : Mr. Dhurjati Kr Prasad Gp7 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA ORAL ORDER 2 22-02-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. It is submitted that the petitioner and one Manorama Devi were applicants for Angan Bari Sevika. The latter came to be wrongly selected. The District Magistrate on
5.1.2010 held that the Aam Sabha had recommended the petitioner first place. The Mukhiya wrongly recommended the name of Manorama Devi by tampering with records. The records amply reflect the selection of the petitioner and that the Mukhiya deliberately created a controversy and added one more recommendation suo motu leading to denial of appointment to the petitioner. It was held that the actions of the Mukhiya were motivated by self aggrandizement. Directions were given to lodge F.I.R. against Patna High Court CWJC No.1750 of 2012 (2) dt.22-02-2012 2 him. But, instead of directing appointment of the petitioner, the District Magistrate directed for fresh selection. The writ petition has been filed two years later on
17.1.2012. The writ petition only states that the petitioner was pursuing the matter by filing representations. The Court does not have the benefit of any assertions by the petitioner that no fresh development with regard to any fresh selection as directed by the District Magistrate has not taken place. While holding the petitioner has been recommended and that there may not have been sufficient justification for the District Magistrate to order fresh selection on 5.1.2010, in view of the findings recorded therein with regard to the petitioner by reason of the passage of time, the Court is not persuaded to give any Mandamus to appoint the petitioner in accordance with the original selection. Unless shown to the contrary, there shall be a presumption that the order of the District Magistrate has been implemented by a fresh selection process and any orders at this stage for appointment of the petitioner shall only create more administrative chaos by the orders of the Court. The Court is not persuaded to pass such orders. The writ application is disposed. (Navin Sinha, J) K.C.jha/-
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.