IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.659 of 2009 DHARMAWATI DEVI, WIFE OF JAI PRAKASH SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AJAGARA, P.O. AURAIYA, P.S. KUDRA, DISTRICT – KAIMUR AT BHABHUA …. ……………………………………….PETITIONER / APPELLANT Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR, 2. THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY, WELFARE DEPT., GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA, 3. DIRECTOR, WELFARE DEPARTMENT (CHILD DEVELOPMENT), GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA, 4. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE – CUM – COLLECTOR, KAIMUR AT BHABHUA, 5. DY. DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER, KAIMUR AT BHABHUA, 6. DISTRICT WELFARE OFFICER, KAIMUR AT BHABHUA, 7. SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER, MOHANIYA, DISTRICT – KAIMUR AT BHABHUA, 8. CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER, KUDRA, SUB- DIVISION, MOHANIYA, DISTRICT – KAIMUR, 9. BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, KUDRA, DISTRICT – KAIMUR, AND 10. MUKHA DEVI, WIFE OF SRI AKLU RAM, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE – AJAGARA, P.O. AURIYA, P.S. – KUDRA, DISTRICT – KAIMUR…. RESPONDENTS / RESPONDENTS. ----------- 2. 14.05.2009. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the State. The Writ Court has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant in view of the finding against her that she withdrew Rs. 7000/- of public money from the Bank Account and misappropriated the same. Before us it has been submitted that Child Development Project Officer is not the competent authority to disengage the petitioner from working as 2 Anganbari Sevika. Clause 11 of the relevant scheme, which is annexed as Annexure-2 to this appeal, shows that the selection-cum-appointment letter is to be issued by the Child Development Project Officer, hence, it cannot be said that the impugned order disengaging the petitioner is not by a competent authority. On merits it was submitted that statement and claim of Mukha Devi that her signature had been forged should not have been accepted by the authorities. We are unable to go into such submission because in writ jurisdiction we find that there was sufficient material before the concerned authority for giving its finding against the appellant. The finding is, therefore, not perverse and cannot be interfered with. We find no merit in this appeal. In is accordingly dismissed. dk ( Shiva Kirti Singh, ACJ ) ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J )