Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 3 (PAT)

Manju Singh v. State Of Bihar

2001-01-02

AFTAB ALAM

body2001
Judgment Aftab Alam, J. 1. This is one of the cases which seem to have been rendered practically devoid of any meaning of relevance on account of their long pendency before this Court. The controversy in this case relates to selection of Aangan Bari Sevika for the Child Welfare Centre in Sebnan Gram Panchayat. 2. It is not needed here to go into the question whether Aangan Bari Sevika is a civil post under the Government or it is simply an engagement for carrying on some Child Welfare Scheme framed by the Government and whether the engagement to work as Aangan Bari Sevika can also be subjected to the same rigorous tests as prescribed for appointment against a civil post under the Government. 3. Suffice it to note that according to the petitioner, earlier a selection was made for engagement as Aangan Bari Sevika and she was the candidate selected for the centre in question. Admittedly, however, no engagement order was issued and she had not started working as Sevika at the centre in question. It appears that it was brought to the notice of the Minister, Welfare Department, Government of Bihar that a number of centres were not functional for want of selection of Aangan Bari Sevikas and he, by order dated 29.1.1991, asked the Deputy Director, Welfare to personally initiate steps for selection of Aangan Bari Sevikas so that all those centres may be activated. On the basis of the letter issued by the Minister, the Deputy Director, Welfare, once again initiated the process for selection of Sevikas for a number of centres and this time, it was respondent No. 8 who was selected for the centre at Sebnan. The select list was issued under letter No. 31 dated 13.3.1991. It was at that stage that the petitioner came to this Court challenging the selection of respondent No. 8 as Sevikas for the centre. 4. This writ petition was admitted for hearing on 1.7.1992 and since then, it has been lying dormant in this Court. When this case was taken up for hearing today, I find that there is no counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the State and respondent No. 8 also remains unrepresented. 5. 4. This writ petition was admitted for hearing on 1.7.1992 and since then, it has been lying dormant in this Court. When this case was taken up for hearing today, I find that there is no counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the State and respondent No. 8 also remains unrepresented. 5. Counsel for the petitioner stated that though respondent No. 8 was selected, she is not working at the centre and, in fact, she never joined the centre at Sebnan Gram Panchyat to work as the Sevika there. It is also stated that the centre is still not functioning for want of a Sevika. That being the position, the petitioner can have no grievance and this writ petition seems to have become infructuous. This Court is not aware of the correct facts but in case it is true that the Aangan Bari centre at Sebnan Gram Panchayat is without a Sevika and for that reason, nonfunctional, the respondent-authorities are expected to take steps for engagement of a Sevika, in accordance with the rules and the guidelines, so as to make the Centre operational without any undue delay. 6. This writ petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid observations.