IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.19749 of 2011 ====================================================== 1. Renu Devi Wife Of Vijay Kumar Singh Resident Of Village-Mohania, P.S.-Mohania, District-Kaimur (Bhabhua). .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar Through The Secretary, Welfare Department, Bihar, Patna. 2. The Commissioner, Patna Commissionary, Patna. 3. The District Magistrate, Kaimur, District Kaimur (Bhabhua). 4. The District Welfare Officer, Kaimur District Kaimur (Bhabhua). 5. The Child Development Project Officer, Mohania, District-Kaimur. 6. Mukhiya, Mohania Gram Panchayat, Block Mohania, P.S. Mohania, District-Kaimur. 7. Panchayat Sachiv, Mohania Gram Panchayat, P.S. Mohania, District Kaimur. 8. Block Development Officer, Mohania Block, P.S. Mohania, District- Kaimur. 9. Usha Devi Wife Of Ram Pravesh Singh R/O Village-Mohania, District- Kaimur. 10. Smt. Saroj Tripathi W/O Sri Jagdish Tripathi R/O Village-Mohania, District-Kaimur (Bhabhua). .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Babu Nandan Prasad For the Respondent/s : Mr. Rakesh Kr Samrendra Sc21 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA) 2 05-12-2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner, an Angan Bari Sevika, is aggrieved by the order of the District Magistrate 26.9.2007 setting aside her appointment as affirmed in appeal by the Commissioner on 23.8.2011. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that her Patna High Court CWJC No.19749 of 2011 (2) dt.05-12-2011 2 Matriculation mark sheets were not forged. The petitioner has been denied adequate opportunity to persuade the authorities in holding that it was not a forged document. Learned counsel for the State points out from the order of the District Magistrate that even the mapping register does not appear to have been prepared properly and that the petitioner came to be appointed despite opposition during the Aam Sabha. It is emphasized that the petitioner was duly noticed and heard. Whether documents of the petitioner were forged or not, whether the mapping register was in accordance with law or not and whether any opposition was raised during the Aam Sabha regarding appointment of the petitioner on basis of a forged document are all disputed questions of fact which can only be examined appropriately in a civil suit if the petitioner is so advised. In view of the order in L.P.A. No.772/11 the Court declines jurisdiction with regard to a claim for appointment as an agent. The writ application is dismissed as not maintainable which cannot prejudice any civil suit which has to be decided on its own merits. Krishna Chandra Jha/- (Navin Sinha, J)