IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10558 of 2009 ***** Mahendra Singh, son of Late Chandradeo Singh, resident of village- Kakardia bigha, P.O. Kalp, P.S. Jehanabad, District-Jehanabad. …. …. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Social Welfare, Main Secretariat, Bihar, Patna. 2. The Director, I.C.D.S. (Social and Welfare Department, Indira Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna. 3. The District Magistrate, Jehanabad. 4. District Programme Officer, Jehanabad. 5. Child Development Project Officer, Jehanabad. …. …. Respondents ----------- 2. 25.8.2009. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The order dated 11.9.2008 (Annexure-1) of the District Magistrate, Jehanabad is under challenge in the present writ application. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that there are certain other so-called tolas, which have always been part and parcel of what is known as Kakardia village but they are being kept out by the impugned order from the so-called mapping, while setting up of the Kakardia Child Development Project scheme. The selection of Anganbari Sewika is being done on the basis of the population of Kakardia village alone. This according to the petitioner will keep the other tolas of the villages out of the purview or benefit under the Anganbari scheme. A plain reading of the order indicates that the District Magistrate has come to a considered opinion that the insistence of certain vested interest in including these additional population of the other so- called tolas is only to dilute the majority population of the scheduled caste - 2 - so that the selection of Anganbari Sewika does not accrue to a scheduled caste candidate. The whole object is basically to usurp the position by the other vested interest. When a categorical finding has been recorded in this regard by the District Magistrate, no interference is required in the order. If the residents of other tolas are totally kept out of the benefit under the scheme and are not included in any further mapping then may be they have a case or grievance for discrimination or isolation. This is not the pleading in the present case. If the residents have been left out then the petitioner, who is a public spirited person may bring the fact to the notice of the concerned authority about their exclusion. The writ application is dismissed with the above observation. Pawan/- (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)