IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15905 of 2005 BIPULA KUMARI wife of Mukesh Prasad Singh, resident of village Lalatari, P.S. Rajoun, District Banka. Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR 2.The Commissioner, Bhagalpur Division, Bhagalpur. 3.Regional Development Officer, Bhagalpur Division, Bhagalpur. 4.Deputy Director, welfare, Bhagalpur Division, Bhagalpur. 5.The Collector Banka, District Banka. 6.Deputy Development Commissioner, Banka. 7.Child Development Project Officer, Banka. 8.Block Development Officer, Rajaun, District Banka. 9.Welfare Officer, Banka, District Banka. 10.Tanuja Kumari wife of Anoj Kumar Rao, resident of village Lilatari, P.S. Rajoun, Disrict Banka. ----------- 5 13/11/2009 Heard counsel for the petitioner, counsel for respondent no.10 as also counsel for the State. Prayer of the petitioner in this writ application reads as follows:- “(i)For quashing the order dated 29.9.2005 (Annrxure-5) passed by the Commissioner Bhagalpur Division Bhagalpur in Banka Miscellaneous Case No.8/2005-06. (ii)For quashing the order contained in letter no.388 dated 17.8.2005 (Annexure-3) passed by the Deputy Director Welfare Bhagalpur Division Bhagalpur (Respondent no.4). (iii)For quashing the order contained in letter no.1010 dated 12.9.2005 (Annexure-4) passed by the Regional Development Officer Bhagalpur Division Bhagalpur (Respondent no.3). (iv)For issuance of direction commanding the respondent authority to pass an order of selection of the petitioner on the post of 2 Angan Bari Sevika as she fulfills all the requisite criteria on the basis of decision of Gram Sabha. (v)For issuance of direction commanding the respondent authority to cancel the order of selection, if any, of respondent no.10 on the post of Angan Bari Sevika for whichshe has not fulfills the requisite criteria.” Counsel for the petitioner while assailing the impugned order passed by the Commissioner of the Division would submit that as there were only two candidates, namely, the petitioner and respondent no.10 for the post of Angan Bari Sevika there was no requirement for the Commissioner to direct for fresh selection as selection as the issue of appointment was confined between them and thus when the selection and appointment of the Respondent no. 10 was found to be bad only a direction ought to have been for appointment of the petitioner. In the opinion of this Court, the impugned order passed by Commissioner of the Division cannot be held to be bad inasmuch as the area in question at Rajaun was having majority population of scheduled caste community but none of the petitioners belong to the said community. Therefore, if the Commissioner of the Division on the basis of his own application of mind to the circulars issued by the State Government contemplating appointment only from the largest ab initio void caste/category in the area in question had come to a conclusion that selection of the petitioner was ab initio void, this Court cannot overrule such finding of fact by substituting its own opinion contrary to the provisions in the scheme and guidelines for the same. Moreover, such decision has to be always taken in the meeting 3 of the Gram Sabha. The mere absence of Mukhia cannot be a ground for not convening the meeting of Gram Sabha in whose absence the Up-Mukhiya or even in his absence a member of the Panchayat also is entitled to preside the over meeting in accordance with the scheme and sprit of the Gram Panchayat Act. That being so, this Court would not find any merit in this application and the same accordingly, being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed. Abhay kumar (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)