IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.18019 of 2009 1. MRS. RITA KUMARI W/O AWADHESH KUMAR R/O VILL.- KALYANPUR, PANCHAYAT SAKRI, P.S.- ISHLAMPUR, DISTT.- NALANDA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE COLLECTOR NALANDA 3. THE S.D.O. HILSA, NALANDA 4. THE CHILD DEVELOPMENT OFFICER ISHLAMPUR, DISTT.- NALANDA ----------- 2. 12.3.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner claims to have been an applicant for the post of Anganwari Sewika at Anganwari Centre No. 149 Kalyanpur Centre, Islampur, Nalanda. The panel of candidates was prepared on 3.4.2007. It is the case of the petitioner that one Indu Kumari was at serial no. 1 (wrongly been described as Shanti Kumari in the impugned order dated 18.12.2007). The petitioner was at serial no. 2. From the impugned order itself, learned counsel submits that the petitioner raised the question of the illegality of the appointment of the person at serial no. 1 during the life of the panel itself as notices were issued on her complaint on 23.11.2007 mentioned in the impugned order. Once the respondents have found correctness in her claim and 2 terminated the services of the person at serial no. 1 of the panel, there is no justification for the respondents to go in for fresh selection and ignoring that the petitioner now comes at serial no. 1 position of the panel. The petitioner having raised the question in the life of the panel itself, and the respondents having found justification in the claim, this Court is not satisfied per se that the respondents are justified in going for fresh selection ignoring the claim of the petitioner in view of the law reported in (2003) 3 SCC 699, Paragraph 10 of which reads as follows:- “…………….Secondly, we find that the select list was finalized in the month of November 1996 and the writ petition was filed by the respondent in the month of October 1997, i.e., before the expiry of one year from the date of the list. Merely because a period of one year has elapsed during the pendency of litigation, we cannot decline to grant the relief to which the respondent has been found entitled by the High Court………..” Let the respondents consider the claim of the petitioner in light of the aforesaid discussion. This shall naturally be without prejudice to any orders that they may have passed by any authority/ Court, if any challenge to the same had been made by the aforesaid Indu Kumari (wrongly described as 3 Shanti Kumari). Let such consideration be done and appropriate orders passed within a maximum period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The writ application stands disposed. P. Kumar (Navin Sinha, J.)