AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J
Learned counsel for the parties are present.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the solitary point involved in the present case is that the impugned order is without jurisdiction. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment passed by this court reported in 2010 (2) JLJR 354 (Lilmani Devi versus State of Jharkhand & Ors.) (W.P. (S) No. 1100 of 2008 decided on 28.01.2010) However, counsel for the respondents has pointed out that no such point of jurisdiction has been taken in the writ petition.
From the records of this case it appears that the impugned order was passed as back as on 17.06.2011 with a clear direction for calling fresh Aam sabha for selection of Anganbari Sevika.
The learned counsel for the respondents is directed to seek instruction on the point of jurisdiction of the authority who has passed the impugned order and also on the point as to whether fresh Aam Sabha has been conducted and any other person has been appointed as Anganbari Sevika. Learned counsel for the respondents has also submitted that if Aam Sabha has been conducted and another person has been appointed, then the present writ petition will be infructuous for all practical purposes.
The supplementary counter affidavit should be filed by 17.08.2022.
Post this case on 24.08.2022.