IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1792 of 2011 SAROJ BHARTI W/I UMESH KUMAR YADAV R/O VILL. & PO DHABHI PS- LAUKAHI, DISTT0 MADHUBANI--PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE CHIEF SECY. GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECY. WELFARE DEPATT. GOVT. OF BIHAR,PATNA 3. THE DIRECTOR I.C.D.S.GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 4. THE COMMISSIONER,DARBHANGA DIVISION,DARBHANGA 5. THE DISTRICRT MAGISTRATE,MADHUBANI 6. THE D.P.O., MADHUBANI 7. THE B.D.I. LAUKAHI,DISTT- MADHUBANI 8. THE C.D.P.O. LAUKAHI, MADHUBANI 9. THE MUKHIYA, GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ,NARAHIA NORTH BLOCK LAUKAHI, DISTT- MADHUBANI 10. THE PANCHAYAT SECY. GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ, NARAHIA, NORTH BLOCK LAUKAHI, DISTT- MADHUBANI----------RESPONDENTS. ----------- 2 29.6.2011 This writ application was filed by the petitioner because despite the so called selection having been made by Aam Shabha for filling up the post of Anganbari Sevika for Centre No. 109 at Dhabhi Middle under Gram Panchayat Narhiaa North Block-Laukahi in the District of Madhubani, the final decision was not taken on the pretext of verification of the certificates of the candidates. Petitioner now wants a direction upon the respondents to complete the exercise. The stand of the State which emerges from the counter affidavit is that the procedure for appointment of Anganbari Sevika has undergone a change with effect from 14.6.2010. Due to the said intervening circumstances the whole exercise has to be started de novo and a fresh advertisement has been issued by the District Programme Officer beginning on 6.1.2011. Petitioner too is one of the applicants and they expect that this time the desired result of completing selection process and appointment on the post would be achieved. - 2 - The case of such inaction with regard to Anganbari Sevika despite selections is trickling to this Court. The Court fails to understand as to why the authority saddled with the responsibility would drag the procedure for many a years despite the selection or recommendation having been made by the Aam Shabha. The Court does not want to infer anything more in such inactivity. However in the present case a direction is issued upon the respondent that the procedure or the exercise initiated as per advertisement in January, 2011 would be completed within thirty days from the date of production or communication of a copy of this order. This writ application is disposed of with the above direction for strict compliance. RPS (Ajay Kumar Tripathi,J.)