IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9105 of 2007 JYOTI KUMARI @ JYOTI DEVI wife of Awdhesh Kumar Das, resident of village Govindpur khajuri, p.S. kalyanpur, District Samastipur. Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Chief Secretary Main Secretariat, Patna. 2.The Director, ICDS, Directorate of I.CDS, Social Welfare Department, Bihar, Patna. 3.The Commissioner, Darbhanga Division, Darbhanga. 4.The District Magistrate, Samastipur. 5.The Deputy Development Commissioner (Welfare) Samastipur. 6.The Chairman, District Supervisory Committee, Samastipur. 7.The District Welfare Officer, Samastipur. 8.The Block Development Officer Cum Child Development Project Officer (C.D.P.O.), Block Kalyanpur, District Samastipur. 9.Manju Devi, Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Raj Govindpur Khajuri, P.S. Kalyanpur, District Samastipur. 10.Secretary, Gram Panchayat Raj Govindpur khajuri, P.S. kalayanpur District samastipur. 11. Fool kumari wife of Uday Shankar Singh, resident of village balbhadrapur khajuri, Ward no.1, P.S. Kalyanpur, District Samastipur. ----------- 2 27/11/2009 Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. Prayer of the petitioner in this writ application reads as follows:- “That this writ application is being filed for issuance of order (s0, direction(s), writ(s) particularly in the nature of writ of certiorari for quashing of the recommendation of selection of respondent no.11 namely Fool kumar on the post of “Angan bari Sahayika’ by Aam Sabha meeting held on 4.1.2007 under the Chairmanhip of mukhiya at Gram Panchayat Raj Govindpur Khajuri for Angan Bari Centre NO.260 in the Block of 2 Kalyanpur, District Samastipur and also for a direction to select the petitioner on the said post because respondents No.11 was not eligible candidate for the said post and she was selected by the respondent authorities in illegal as well as arbitrary manner and in complete violation of the rules laid down in the Circular/Guideline of the Government of Bihar.” Counsel for the petitioner with reference to the aforementioned relief would submit that as a matter of fact the petitioner has intended to assail the resolution of the Gram Sabha dated 19.12.2006, but as the copy of the same did not become available to the petitioner he has filed this writ application assailing the next proceeding dated 4.1.2007. In the opinion of this Court, such approach in filing an incomplete writ application cannot be appreciated. Be that as it may, as the grievance of the petitioner still remains with regard to her non selection and the alleged fraud in the selection and appointment of respondent no.11, the petitioner is given liberty to approach the prescribed authority under the circular of the State Government, i.e, Collector of the district who is expected to decide the matter at an early date preferably within a period of six months from the date of filing of a fresh representation by the petitioner. The Collector of the district, however, before passing his final order would afford opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, respondent 3 no.1 and the representative of the Gram Panchayat wherein it would also open to respondent no.7 to raise objection with regard to the fact that the petitioner was never an applicant for the post of Anganbari Sevika and she was not even entitled to question the appointment of respondent no.11. The plea in reply of counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has a documentary proof to show filing of such application, is one which has to be again appreciated by the Collector of the district who has to take final decision in the first instance. With the aforementioned observation/direction this application is disposed of. Abhay Kumar (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)