IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4363 of 2004 Nirmala Kumari, Daughter of Sri Ram Shankar Prasad, Resident of Muradpur, P.O.-Monopur, Via-Bachawara, District-Begusarai. ……………………………… Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Director, I.C.D.S. Directorate, Social Welfare Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 3. The District Magistrate, Begusarai. 4. The District Welfare Officer, Begusarai. 5. The Child Welfare Project Officer-cum-C.O. Bhawanpur, Begusarai. 6. The Block Development Officer, Bhagwanpur, Begusarai. 7. Veena Kumari, wife of Hare Ram Malakar, Resident of Village-Muradpur, P.O.-Manopur, P.S.-Bhagwanpur, District-Begusarai. 8. Praveena Kumari wife of Sita Ram Mahto, Resident of Village-Jamaldipur, P.O.-Mansoor Chak, District- Begusarai. ……………………………… Respondents ----------- 3. 9.11.2009 No one appears for the petitioner. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ application reads as follows: “(i) For issuance of writ of or in the nature of writ of mandamus directing the respondents no. 2 and 2, to cancel the whole appointment list of Anganwari Sevikas and Sahayakas of Bhagwanpur Block, which has been prepared by the B.D.O., Bhagwanpur Block contained in Annexure 3 and 3/1. (ii) For issuance of writ of an in the nature of writ of mandamus directing the respondents no. 2 and 3 to consider her representation and pass order according to law. (iii) For issuance of writ of or in 2 the nature of writ of mandamus directing the respondent no.2 to stay the operation of the said list contained in Annexure 3/1 till final conclusion of the case in this Hon’ble Court.” It is the case of the petitioner that earlier she had moved for the same relief before this Court in C.W.J.C.No. 11087/1997 which was disposed of by an order dated 11.12.1998 by giving liberty to the petitioner to file a representation before the Director of Social Welfare Department but no order was passed thereon by the said authority. In view of the fact that an order had already been issued by this Court for considering the case of the petitioner for passing an appropriate order, the remedy for her could not have been filing of a fresh writ petition for the same relief. That being so, this application is misconceived and is dismissed. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/