IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3030 of 2008 SARBILA SINHA @ SARVILA SINHA W/O BASUDEO YADAV, R/O VILLAGE-LEMBUA, P.O-BAURI, P.S.- KASHICHAK, DISTRICT-NAWADAH. ……………Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF WELFARE, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. DIRECTOR OF WELFARE, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 4. THE COLLECTOR, NAWADA. 5. THE DEPUTY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER, NAWADA. 6. THE DISTRICT WELFARE OFFICER, NAWADA. 7. THE CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER, KASHICHAK, DISTRICT-NAWADA. ……………Respondent-1st set.. 8. KUMARI RANJU W/O UPENDRA PRASAD, R/O VILLAGE- LEMBUA, P.O.-BAURI, P.S.-KASHICHAK, DISTRICT- NAWADA. …………Respondent 2nd set. ----------- 03 07.04.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as private respondent and the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by the fact that the respondent no. 8, Kumari Ranju, was appointed as Anganbari Sevika, although, the petitioner had passed her intermediate examination which was not considered by the Appointing Authority. The enquiry was held by the Deputy Development Commissioner with regard to the procedure of appointment. The Deputy Development Commissioner has come to the conclusion that the petitioner was better qualified in view of the fact that apart from passing the matriculation examination in first division, she also had the additional qualification of being intermediate. If her application was to be considered then some bonus marks were to - 2 - be given for the intermediate examination. The case of the petitioner was rejected alongwith two other persons on the ground that the petitioner did not file her application within the time fixed by the Mukhiya for filing applications. It has been argued on behalf of the petitioner that the report of the Deputy Development Commissioner indicating that the petitioner had not filed her application within time is unwarranted and it can be easily verified from the records. It is also submitted that the petitioner had filed an application before the District Magistrate, Nawada on 02.08.2008, which is still pending. A representation has been filed by the villagers which indicates that the petitioner was better qualified than the incumbent-respondent no. 8 who has been appointed. Respondent No. 8 has appeared in this case and has supported the report of the Deputy Development Commissioner by saying that the petitioner had not submitted her application within time and thus she was not entitled to be considered. I find that this aspect of the matter would have to be examined by the District Magistrate who will pass appropriate order in this matter. The petitioner is directed to file a fresh representation within a period of four weeks from today before the District Magistrate, Nawada. Both the parties are directed to appear before the District Magistrate, Nawada on 2nd of May, 2011. The District Magistrate, Nawada is also directed to call for the records and thereafter pass an appropriate order within a period - 3 - of three months from the date of appearance of the parties. The application stands disposed of. Safik (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)