IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18973 of 2011 Chinta Kumari @ Chinta Devi, Wife of Hari Narayan Ram, Resident of Village-Karma, P.S.-Chenari, District-Rohtas, Bihar. Versus 1. The State of Bihar through its Principal Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Director, Integrated Child Development Service, Government of Bihar. 3. The District Magistrate, Rohtas, Bihar. 4. The District Programme Officer, Rohtas, Bihar. 5. The Sub Divisional Officer, Sasaram, District-Rohtas. 6. The Community Development Programme Officer, Chenari, District-Rohtas, Bihar. 7. The Mukhiya, Ugahani Gram Panchayat, Block-Chenari, District- Rohtas, Bihar. ---------------------------------- 02. 30.11.2011 Annexure-3 is the order passed by the District Magistrate, Rohtas on the direction of the High Court issued in CWJC No. 10793 of 2009. The said writ was filed by the petitioner for a direction upon the respondents to consider her claim for appointment after declaring the appointment of one Manju Kumari to be bad in law. Issue was selection of Manju Kumari on the post of Anganbari Sevika. In the detailed order passed by the District Magistrate, Rohtas at Sasaram dated 14th May, 2011, there is a clear and categorical finding that the selection was not carried out in a fair and square manner and that Manju Kumari was accommodated on the basis of some forged and fabricated documents for which even a criminal prosecution has been ordered. 2 This time the writ application has been filed by the petitioner that she must be appointed on the post after the vacancy caused due to removal of Manju Kumari. What is the basis for making such claim is not understood by the Court because counsel for the petitioner does not produce any authority, direction or circular which creates a right for her appointment in the circumstances which led to removal of Manju Kumari. Even otherwise, the appointment related to the selection made in the year 2006-2007. In that view of the matter the only option left for the respondents is to initiate a fresh exercise where the petitioner may be a claimant as well but giving a direction for appointment of the petitioner merely because she too was there in the zone of consideration is not supported by any law. Writ is dismissed. rkp ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)