IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.868 of 2011 Nirmala Kumari W/o Binod Kumar Yadav, R/o vill- Jateauli PO- Dharmpur, PS- Vaishali, Distt- Vaishali-----------------------Petitionr Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through the Principal Secy. Social Welfare Deptt, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 2. The Commissioner, Tirhut Division, Vaishali 3. The District Magistrate, Vaishali 4. the District Programme Officer, Vaishali 5. The CDPO, Vaishali 6. The Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Jeteauli, Vaishali 7. The Panchayat Secy. Gram Panchayat, Jetauli, Vaishali ------------------------------------Respondents. ----------- 3 22.7.2011 Heard learned counsel for the parties. This writ application was filed by the petitioner because the respondents were not accepting her joining on the post of Anganbari Sevika despite valid selection made. The respondents were directed specially the C.D.P.O., Vaishali to file counter affidavit explaining the circumstances. From the material annexed with the counter affidavit including annexure-B a new fact emerges. Initially selection made in 2007 has become a subject matter of dispute. The so called selected candidate was said to be one Manorama Kumari whose certificate was found to be forged. The District Magistrate ordered her removal and directed holding of fresh selection process. It was in this exercise the petitioner came to be selected. The matter did not rest at that because one Anita Devi who was also a claimant in the earlier round of selection filed Appeal No. 206 of 2009 before the Divisional commissioner Tirhut Division Muzaffarpur. The Divisional Commissioner passed order on 13.9. 2010 setting aside the order of the District Magistrate and directing 2 appointment of Smt. Anita Devi. Since the appointment or selection of the petitioner was under a fortuitous circumstance based on the direction of the District Magistrate which has now been interfered with by the Divisional Commissioner then there is impediment in way of petitioner to join. The reason for non-acceptance of joining therefore seems to be cogent. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner thereafter is that she was not a party to the appeal nor she was heard by the Divisional Commissioner. In this regard the Court can only observe that the factum of selection having been carried out was never brought to the notice of Divisional Commissioner. Obviously if some right had accrued to the petitioner she ought to have been more vigilant in this regard. If the petitioner so wants then she can take steps for review of the order of Divisional Commissioner by moving him in such circumstances. This Court will not give any direction to accept the joining of the petitioner so long as the order of Divisional Commissioner exists. This writ application is dismissed with the liberty as above. RPS (Ajay Kumar Tripathi,J.)