IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11286 of 2007 Rohini Devi, Daughter of Badho Paswan, Resident of Village Padari, P.S. Dobhi, District Gaya. -------- Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Director, Panchayati Raj, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 3. The District Magistrate, Gaya. 4. The District Programme Officer, Gaya. 5. Block Development Officer, Dobhi, Gaya. 6. Child Development Project Officer, Dobhi, Gaya. 7. Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat, Wari, Dobhi Block, Gaya. 8. Panchayat Sewak, Gram Panchayat, Wari under Dobhi Block in the district of Gaya. 9. Sunita Devi, Wife of Surendra Yadav, Daughter of Bisundhari Yadav, Resident of Bhalua, P.S. Dobhi, Distt. Gaya. ------------ Respondents ----------- 2 4.12.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ application reads as follows:- “1(i) To issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, commanding the respondents to appoint the petitioner on the post of Anganwadi Sewika for Padari Centre under Wari Panchayat. (ii) To issue further writ order or direction for commanding the respondents to cancel the appointment of respondent no.9 on the post of Anganwadi Sewika of Padari under Dobhi Block in the District of Gaya. (iii) This Hon’ble Court may further adjudicate and hold that appointment of respondent no.9 as Anganwadi 2 Sewika of Padari Centre under Dobhi Block is ab initio void and illegal, because the said Centre is for Scheduled Caste Category, whereas respondent no.9 comes from General category. (iv) This Hon’ble Court may further adjudicate and hold that appointment of respondent no.9 on the post of Anganwadi Sewika against the reserved center is bad in law as well as in fact.” Learned counsel for the petitioner with regard to the aforementioned relief would submit that the petitioner had filed a representation on 21.6.2007 highlighting the illegality and infirmities in the selection/appointment of the respondent no.9 but no order thereon was passed by the Collector of the district as a result whereof, the petitioner has to file this writ application. From perusal of Annexure-4, a copy of the representation, it would appear that the same was received in the office of the Collector of Gaya district on 21.6.2007 and therefore, the Collector of the district in all fairness ought to have discharged his duty as was entrusted to him in the relevant 3 guidelines issued by the State Government. Counsel for the State also would not be in a position to explain such matter as the counter affidavit has been filed only on behalf of the Director, Panchayati Raj (Respondent No.2) who has come out to say that he has got nothing to do with such selection/appointment of Anganbari Sevika, a job which has been entrusted under the guidelines issued by the State Government to the respective Gram Panchayat which has to make such selection/appointment in the light of the policy laid down by the State Government and any complaint thereof can be looked into by the Collector of the district. This Court would fail to understand the purpose of filing of such irrelevant counter affidavit. The respondent no.2 should take into consideration that merely because he was made party to this writ application would not require him to file a counter affidavit if he does not have any say on the facts of the case. This Court would treat such counter affidavit to be a avoidable and wasteful expenditure and would accordingly caution the 4 holder of the office, the Director, Panchayati Raj to be more careful in future in ensuring that an unnecessary counter affidavit is not filed which would amount to wastage of tax- payers' money. Coming to the merits of the case, this Court would find that the Collector of the district of Gaya has not disposed of the representation of the petitioner till date and accordingly, this Court would direct the said authority, the Collector of the Gaya district to look into the grievance of the petitioner and dispose of the said representation of the petitioner by a reasoned order after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the respondent no.9 as also the representative of the concerned Gram Panchayat within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. With the aforementioned observations and direction, this application is disposed of. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)