IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1384 of 2011 Punita Kumari, wife of Dinesh Prasad, resident of village Belhi, Panchayat Shivpuri Ward No.10 Centre No. Belhi Paswan Tola, P.S. & Block Kishanpur, District Supaul………………………….Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through its Principal Secretary, Department of Social Welfare, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Director, I.C.D.S. Directorate, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Commissioner, Koshi Division, Saharsa. 4. The District Magistrate, Supaul. 5. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Supaul. 6. The Block Development Officer, Kishanpur. 7. The Child Development Project Officer, Kishanpur. 8. The Mukhiya Gram Panchayat Shivpuri, P.S. & Block kishanpur, District Supaul. 9. The Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Shivpuri, P.S. & Block Kishanpur, District Supaul 10.Sarita Kumari Choudhary, wife of Sri Shiv Kumar Choudhary, resident of village Belhi, P.S. & Block Kishanpur, District Supaul…………………………….Respondents With CWJC No.17889 of 2010 Sarita Kumari Chaudhary, wife of Shiv Kumar Chaudhary, resident of Village Belahi (Shivpuri), Police Station Kishanpur, district Supaul………………………………………………………………………………..Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through its Principal Secretary, Department of Social Welfare, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Director, I.C.D.S. Directorate, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The District Magistrate, Supaul. 4. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Supaul. 5. The Block Development Officer, Kishanpur. 6. The Child Development Project Officer, Kishanpur. 7. The Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Raj, Shivpuri, District Supaul 10. Punita Kumari, wife of Shri Dinesh Prasad Yadav…………………………….Respondents ----------- 2 11.03.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned counsel for 2 the State. Petitioner of the first case was appointed as Anganwari Sewika. Petitioner of the second case challenged the same before this Court initially. As she had already filed an appeal before the Collector, her writ application was disposed of with a direction to the Collector to dispose of her appeal. The same was disposed of against the petitioner of the first case and in favour of petitioner of second case. Against the same, petitioner of the first case moved the Commissioner who also upheld the order passed by the Collector. Both the authorities, while cancelling engagement of the petitioner of first case, directed for fresh selection process to be initiated for appointment of Anganwari Sewika. Though petitioner of the second case had succeeded before the Collector and the Commissioner but she became aggrieved by the order of the Collector by which he had directed for fresh selection process to be initiated. Hence, she filed the second writ application. 3 Petitioner of the first case challenges the order of the Collector and Commissioner on merits whereas petitioner of the second case challenges the said order only to the extent that the directions have been issued for holding fresh selection process. Appointment of the petitioner of the first case has been cancelled on the ground that in her application she has not claimed that she was graduate and had not produced any certificate and she only produced the cross-list of B.A. result before the Aam Sabha which was taken into account and, accordingly, her marks was calculated which was found higher than the petitioner of the second case. The authorities have held that production of the cross-list for the first time before the Aam Sabha claiming that the petitioner was graduate, was not correct and the same could not be taken into account. This Court does not find any error in the findings of the two authorities. Therefore, this Court does not find any merit in the first writ application. 4 The second writ application is confined only in respect of challenge to the authorities by which fresh process selection has been directed to be held. The Collector in his order has referred to two Government letter no.1195 dated 24.05.2007 and dated 2545 dated 24.07.2008 and has held that in view of the clarifications contained in those letters, it was appropriate to direct fresh selection process to be held. This Court does not find any error in the same either and, therefore, the second writ application is also dismissed. In the fresh selection process, parties will be at liberty to raise all claims or defence in their respect and raise all the challenges in respect of contesting parties. BT (J. N. Singh, J.)