IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10022 of 2004 MADHURI DEVI, wife of Sri Abhay Kumar Singh, resident of village Jhari, P.O. Dandawan, P.S. Upahara, District Aurangabad (Bihar) … Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through its Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna 2. Secretary, Department of Welfare, State of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna 3. Director, Social Welfare, Bihar, Patna 4. District Magistrate, Aurangabad, Bihar 5. Deputy Development Commissioner, District Aurangabad 6. Child Development Project Officer, District Aurangabad, Bihar 7. Smt. Chinta Devi, wife of Chandra Bhushan Ram, resident of village Jhari, P.O. Dandawan, P.S. Upahara, District Aurangabad … Respondents ----------- 3. 9.11.2009 Heard counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the State. The prayer in this writ application of the petitioner reads as follows: “This writ application is preferred on behalf of the above named petitioner for quashing the selection list dated of “Angan Bari Sewika” for the Centre of village Jhari Gram Panchayat Bhurkhunda Block Goh, District Aurangabad and further for issuance of directions to the respondent authorities to select the petitioner as “Angan Bari Sewika” for aforesaid centre.” With reference to the aforementioned relief counsel for the 2 petitioner would submit that as a matter of fact the petitioner was selected on the post of Anganwari Sevika but due to bungling committed by the Mukhiya and Child Development Project Officer somehow the name of the petitioner was struck off and in her place respondent no.7 was shown to have been selected. Counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that the petitioner had filed a representation before the Collector of the District on 19.7.2004 as with regard to anomaly in the selection and appointment of respondent no.7 but the same has not been disposed of as yet. Though the counsel for the State places reliance on his counter affidavit to justify the selection of private respondent no.7 but no reason has been given therein as to why the representation of the petitioner dated 19.7.2004 was not disposed of by the Collector of the District. Whenever the State Government formulates the scheme and prescribes an authority to ventilate the grievance with regard to selection/ appointment as in the present case vested in the Commissioner and later on given to the 3 Collector, it would become duty of the concerned authority to look into the grievance and take a final decision. That would not only shorten the course of litigation but would also give an effective opportunity to this Court to make a balanced judicial review on pure question of law instead of delving into the question of fact. That having been not done this Court would not be in a position to go into this disputed question of fact and thus keeping this writ application pending, even after a period of five years of its filing would be a wasteful exercise. That being so, this Court would direct the petitioner to file a fresh representation along with a copy of this order to the Collector of the District who is now directed to ensure that he decides the matter after looking into the records of Gram Shabha as also hear the petitioner as well as representative of Gram Shabha and the private respondent no.7. Such exercise must be completed by him within a period of six months from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. 4 With the aforementioned observations and directions, this application is disposed of. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/