IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6500 of 2004 CHINTA KUMARI, W/o Raj Kumar Paswan, resident of village Morsand Malpur, P.O. Birauli, R.I.P.S. Pusa, District Samastipur … Petitoiner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 2. The Director, Welfare Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 3. The District Magistrate, Samastipur 4. The Deputy Development Commissioner (Welfare), Samastipur 5. The District Welfare Officer, Samastipur 6. The Child Development Project Officer (C.D.P.O.) Pusa Block, District Samastipur 7. Devnarayan Singh Mukhiya Gram Panchayat Raj Morsand, Pusa Block, District Samastipur 8. Archana Kumari, W/o Randhir Kumar, resident of village & P.O. Morsand Birauli, R.I.P.S. Pusa, District Samastipur … Respondents ----------- 3. 9.11.2009 No one appears for the petitioner. The prayer in this writ application of the petitioner reads as follows: “This is an application for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or directions for quashing the recommendation of respondent no.10 on the post of “Aangan Bari Sevika” by a committee of respondents concerned held in the meeting of “Aam Sabha” dated on 12.9.2003 at 12 A.M. under Morsand Panchayat for the centre of “Harizan Tola Morsand Malpur” in Pusa Block in the district of Samastipur whereby the concerned respondents illegally as well as arbitrarily manner have recommended 2 the name of respondent no.10 for the post of “Aangan Bari Sevika” and the petitioner further prays for direction the concerned respondents for restraining respondent no.10 to sent up her in training and also to restrain for joining and prays further also to grant any other relief/ reliefs which the petitioner is entitled in the facts and circumstances of the case.” From the reading of the aforementioned prayer, it is clear that while on one hand the petitioner has been assailing the selection and appointment of private respondent no.10 and consequently seeking her own appointment she had not exhausted alternative remedy of moving the higher authority, namely, the Commissioner at the relevant point of time in the year 2004 and subsequently vested in the Collector of the District in the year 2005. That apart the official respondents have filed a counter affidavit in which it is stated that respondent no.10 is said to have been belonging to Backward Class and in the concerned area the majority of the people is also said to be dominated by the 3 Backward Class. Respondent no.10 was said to be recommended by the Gram Sabha for selection on the post of Anganwari Sevika on account of her being found eligible in all respect and in fact a better qualified person than the petitioner. Such detailed counter affidavit justifying the appointment of respondent no.10 has not been controverted by the petitioner by filing any rejoinder affidavit and thus the facts mentioned therein by the official respondents must be deemed to be correct. Once such position emerges, this Court would find no reason for now allowing the petitioner to reopen the issue of appointment of respondent no.10 on the post of Anganwari Sevika. That being so, this application being devoid of any merit is dismissed. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/