IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5148 of 2010 1. ANU KUMARI W/O SRI SANJAY KUMAR R/O VILL SAMARTHA, P.S.BIBHUTIPUR, DISTT-SAMASTIPUR Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR , THROUGH THE COMMISSIONER CUM PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF WELFARE GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. DIRECTOR, I.C.D.S. DIRECTORATE, DEPARTMENT OF WELFARE GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE SAMASTIPUR 4. DISTRICT WELFARE OFFICER SAMASTIPUR 5. DISTRICT PROGRAMME OFFICER SAMASTIPUR 6. SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER ROSERA, SAMASTIPUR 7. BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER BIBHUTIPUR, DISTT- SAMASTIPUR 8. CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER BIBHUTIPUR, DISTT-SAMASTIPUR 9. MUKHIYA , KALYANPUR DAKSHIN (SOUTH) PANCHAYAT P.S.BIBHUTIPUR, DISTT-SAMASTIPUR 10. PANCHAYAT SEVAK, KALYANPUR DAKSHIN (SOUTH) PANCHAYAT P.S. BIBHUTIPUR, DISTT-SAMASTIPUR 11. SEEMA KUMARI W/O SRI AMARJEET KUMAR SINGH R/O VILL SAMARTHA, P.S.BIBHUTIPUR, DISTT-SAMASTIPUR ----------- 2. 16.11.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner was an applicant for the post of Aganwari Sewika at Centre No. 208, Kalyanpur Dakshin (South) Gram Panchayat and is aggrieved by the appointment of respondent no. 11 in preference to her. Learned counsel states that she submitted an application on 23.5.2007. Before 9.6.2007 fixing the date of selection, the petitioner as a precaution apprehending foul play submitted a fresh application on 13.6.2007. An enquiry was held into the matter and 2 Panchayat Sachiv reported out that after the Aam Sabha held on 25.5.2007, the C.D.P.O had directed on 7.6.2007 for accepting further applications for consideration in the merit list. On 9.7.2007, a committee on examination of matters directed that the selection be proceeded with afresh. Respondent no. 11 then came to be appointed without proper consideration of the candidature of the petitioner leading her to file C.W.J.C. No. 7912 of 2009. The District Magistrate on 13.1.2008 gave certain directions which were not being complied with but finally on 24.7.2008, the operation of the panel had been stayed. This Court directed the petitioner to file a fresh representation before the District Magistrate. That has now been disposed by the impugned order dated 16.11.2009. It is submitted that the finding recorded that the petitioner had not submitter her application in time was an error of record inasmuch as the petitioner had submitted her application on 13.6.2007 supported by acknowledgement at Annexure-10. Counsel for the State submits that the matter may be remanded to the District Magistrate for hearing the parties again and pass a fresh, reasoned and speaking order. If the original proceedings of the Aam Sabha 3 dated 25.5.2007 did not fructify in any appointment and directions were issued for fresh consideration, quite obviously, it mandates a fresh advertisement. There could not be a mixed up procedure for a fresh selection based on an earlier advertisement unless it was so provided for with no fresh applications being accepted or considered if submitted beyond the date originally specified. If a fresh selection process was announced on 9.7.2007, it may be a matter for determination if the application of the petitioner dated 13.6.2007 meets the requirement of the same or not. Did respondent no. 11 also submit any fresh application? What directions were issued of the manner in which the fresh selection was to be held. All these factors are found completely wanting in the discussion contained in the impugned order dated 16.11.2009. But at this stage, to set aside the order dated 16.11.2009 may not be wholly appropriate without notice to respondent no. 11. The issue primarily appears to be involving questions of fact. After the earlier selection was cancelled was any fresh advertisement issued. If no fresh advertisement was issued what modalities were prescribed with regard to the applications already received and whether any fresh applications were also 4 received. Simultaneously were applications received after the last date fixed in the earlier advertisement also considered. This application is therefore disposed with the observation that if the petitioner files an application within 30 days from today before the District Magistrate, he is directed by a command of the Court to hear the matter afresh after issuance of respondent no. 11 also and then pass a reasoned and speaking order containing full discussion of the entire sequence of events with relevant dates and other material considered necessary so that the judicial review of the order, if necessary, may be facilitated. Let the same be done within a maximum period of three months from the date of receipt and/or presentation of a copy of this order before the District Magistrate. The writ application stands disposed. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)