Back
PATNA HIGH COURT
Mr. Partha Sarthy, J
Reena Kumari – Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Social Welfare Bihar, Patna – Respondent
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.20637 of 2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner seeks to quash prior orders. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. the existence of an alternate remedy is acknowledged. (Para 4) |
| 3. court permits alternative appeals while not adjudicating merits. (Para 6) |
| 4. court clarifies its non-involvement in the merits of the case. (Para 7) |
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER
2 29-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.
2. The petitioner has filed the instant application for the following relief(s):
“(I) To issue an appropriate order/s direction/s, including a writ preferably in the nature of CERTIORARI for quashing the order dated 23.06.2025 passed in Anganwari case No.12/2021 passed by the whereby and where under he has rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner and affirmed the order dated 12.03.2021 as contained in Memo No. 817 passed by the District Programme Officer, Muzaffarpur. (II) To quash the order as contained in Memo No. 817 dated 12.03.2021 passed by the District programme Officer Muzaffarpur passed in Case No. 87 of 2019 whereby and where under he has cancelled the Selection of the petitioner to the post of Anganwadi Sewika in terms of clause 12 of Anganwadi Sevika /Sahayika guidelines 2016.
(III). To direct the respondent no. 6 and 7 to reinstate the petitioner to the post of Anganwadi Sevika for the abovementioned Anganwadi center, hence forth with.
(IV) To any other relief/s to which the petitioner was be found entitled in the facts and circumstances of the case.”
3. At the outset, it is submitted by learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioner has an alternate and efficacious remedy by way of filing an appeal against the order dated 23.6.2025 passed by the District Magistrate-cum-
Collector, Muzaffarpur before the Divisional Commissioner.
4. The Court finds substance in the submission made on behalf of the respondents.
liberty to the petitioner to challenge the order dated 23.6.2025 of Divisional Commissioner, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur.
6. In case the same is filed within a period of one month, the same shall be considered and decided in accordance with law at the earliest.
7. It is made clear that the Court has not entered into the merits of the case of the petitioner which is to be decided by the authority concerned.
(Partha Sarthy, J)
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
