IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9032 of 2007 Kumari Rashmi Rani, Wife of Shri Shrawan Kumar, Resident of Mohalla Azad Nagar, Khedan Chowk, Ward No.9, Police Station and District Madhepura. --------- Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Deputy Director, Social Welfare Deppt., Kosi Division, Saharsa. 3. The District Magistrate, Madhepura. 4. The District Social Welfare Officer, Madhepura. 5. The Executive Magistrate, Madhepura. 6. The C.D.P.O., Madhepura Block, District Madhepura. 7. The Block Statistical Officer cum Member Secretary Sevika/ Sahayika Selection Committee, Madhepura Block (Madhepura). 8. The Ward Councillor, Ward No.9, Madhepura Municipality, P.S. and District Madhepura. 9. Smt. Madhulata Kumari, Wife of Sri Virendra Kumar, Resident of Mohalla Azad Nagar, Khedan Chowk, Ward No.9, P.S. and District Madhepura. ------- Respondents ----------- 2 1.12.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ application reads as follows:- 1.(A) For issuance of an appropriate writ for quashing the appointment of Respondent no.9 as Sevika for Azad Nagar, Ward no.9, Anganwari Centre no.2 Madhepura Municipality in the District of Madhepura. (B) For issuance of an appropriate writ giving direction to the respondents to consider and appoint the petitioner as sevika of Angan Wari Centre no.2 of Ward no.9 Azad Nagar.” With reference to the aforementioned 2 reliefs, learned counsel for the petitioner pointing towards certain discrepancies in the selection/appointment of the respondent no.9 would submit that when these facts were brought to the knowledge of the Collector of the district as well, he did not take any action as a result whereof, the petitioner had to file this writ application. Counsel for the State on the other hand would try to explain the case of the petitioner by referring to certain averments made in the First Information Report, wherein, it has been shown that the petitioner does not belong to the area in question. As a matter of fact, such a halfhearted attempt on the part of the counsel of the State without filing counter affidavit and denying the facts mentioned in the writ application cannot be appreciated. There is no dispute that the Collector of the district has been made the prescribed authority to decide all sort of grievances pertaining to any flaw in the selection/appointment on the post of Anganbari Sevika and therefore, if the petitioner had filed her representation on 3 7.7.2007, the Collector of the district was under obligation to examine the same and dispose it of by a reasoned order. That having been not done by him till date, this Court would direct the Collector of the district to examine the representation of the petitioner as contained in Annexure-4 & 4/1 to this writ application and pass a reasoned order after holding necessary enquiry as also extending opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, respondent no.9 and the concerned municipality. Such an exercise must be completed within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. With the aforementioned observations and direction, this application is disposed of. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)