IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 16226 of 2011 Sangeeta Devi, wife of Sudhir Rai, resident of village – Alipur Hatta, P.S. – Mahnar, District – Vaishali at Hajipur ………………….. Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Director, ICDS, Department of Welfare, Bihar, Patna 3. The Divisional Commissioner, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur 4. The District Magistrate, Vaishali, Hajipur 5. District Programme Officer, Vaishali, Hajipur 6. The Block Development Officer, Mahnar, District – Vaishali, 7. The Child Development Project Officer, Mahnar, District – Vaishali 8. Panchayat Sewak, Mahnar, Block-Mahnar, District – Vaishali 9. Mukhia, Alipur Hatta Panchayat, Village – Alipur Hatta, P.S.- Mahnar, District – Vaishali 10. Usha Devi, wife of Surendra Bakt, resident of village – Alipur Hatta, P.S. – Mahnar, District – Vaishali ……………….. Respondents ---------------------------------- 02. 15.11.2011 There has been protracted kind of litigation going on between the petitioner and Respondent No. 10, namely, Usha Devi. Origin of dispute is selection of Respondent No. 10 as an Anganwari Sevika at Centre 137, located in Harijan Tola, Alipur Hatta in the District of Vaishali. On the initial complaint lodged by the petitioner, the District Magistrate rendered his opinion on that dispute, holding the appointment of Usha Devi to be bad. Usha Devi approached the High Court by filing a Writ Application, which was numbered as C.W.J.C. No. 11795 of 2008. The Writ was not argued on merits, but was disposed off on the request of the counsel for the petitioner that her representation before the District Magistrate ought to be considered and decided within a time frame. The Learned Single Judge disposed off the matter with such an observation (Annexure- 6). 2 Based on the observation of the High Court, second adjudication, contained in Annexure- 8 came to be made by the District Magistrate. This time he upheld the appointment of Usha Devi and to that extent the allegation or the dispute raised by the petitioner against such selection was set aside for the reason indicated in the said Order. The matter did not end there because this time the present petitioner chose to assail that order by filing C.W.J.C. No. 11213 of 2009. The earlier writ filed by the petitioner against initial selection, which was C.W.J.C. No. 13084 of 2008 came to be clubbed together and disposed off by a common Order, dated 02.09.2009, permitting the petitioner to file an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner. The Divisional Commissioner has upheld the appointment of Usha Devi showing that she was a claimant for appointment to the Centre in question, which consisted of a dominant community belonging to the Scheduled Caste and since petitioner comes from Backward Class community she can never stake a rightful claim for such appointment. There was yet another observation in the Order that the said Centre has been divided now because of the population and a fresh exercise for appointment will have to be carried out for the other part of the Centre, where petitioner can also stake her right for consideration. The Order of the Divisional Commissioner is contained in Annexure- 11 now which is under challenge in the present Writ Application. The first submission of the counsel for the petitioner 3 is that Respondent No. 10 has played a fraud on the system, if not the High Court, as by a mere perusal of the Writ Application, filed by her, it would be evident that there was no representation pending before the District Magistrate and by making a misleading statement the Order contained in Annexure- 6 was obtained and this led to passing of fresh order by the District Magistrate, Vaishali, which amounts to review of the Order passed by him earlier. The other aspect of the matter is that the District Magistrate has erred on the given set of facts to come to a conclusion by taking into consideration certain additional materials in second time round to defeat the claim of the petitioner which in turn became the basis for finding given by the Divisional Commissioner. In the opinion of this Court, the first contention of the petitioner merited consideration, provided the petitioner had approached the Learned Single Judge after the Order, disposing of the Writ of Respondent No. 10 was passed giving a direction upon the Collector to consider the matter and decide her claim on the basis of the representation. She allowed the matter to be decided and only when the matter was decided against her that she is raising a boggy of misrepresentation, fraud or whatever be it in regard to the earlier Order of the Learned Single Judge. To make it worse when the petitioner filed the Writ Application, assailing the second order of District Magistrate, yet another Learned Single Judge did not entertain such a submission and decided to refer the matter to the Divisional Commissioner by 4 permitting the petitioner to file an appeal. If this is where the litigation reached then the dispute so decided can not be undone or reopened on the ground that the earlier order of a Learned Single Judge passed in the Writ Application of Respondent No. 10 as contained in Annexure- 6 deserves to be re-looked into as the issue re-decided within that parameters. The case of the petitioner will have to be now considered on the merits of the adjudication so made and not on the so called submission which is being sought to be made now. She will not be permitted to raise those issues now because of the subsequent developments and her conduct. The Court has been through the Order passed by the Divisional Commissioner contained in Annexure- 11. The totality of the facts including the population and its constitution has been taken into consideration. The mapping exercise which was carried out and the register which was produced in this regard formed the basis for adjudication, which is as per ICDS Scheme, selection has to be from the dominant caste constitution of the Centre. In a caste ridden society like ours free access to households who are the targeted audience for being provided take-home ration is the primary object under such selection. It is the finding of the Divisional Commissioner that Usha Devi comes from the Scheduled Caste community and the Centre for which her selection was made is dominated by Scheduled Caste Community, therefore, her selection whatever be the background is not required to be undone or set aside. So far as the claim of 5 the petitioner is concerned, since she comes from Backward Class Community, she can stake her claim to the divided Centre where a fresh selection is to be carried out. Next submission of the counsel for the petitioner is that no exercise has been done till date despite the order of District Magistrate passed in the year 2009 and therefore there is an effort on the part of the respondents to deny the benefit of appointment or selection to the petitioner. With due respect to the counsel for the petitioner, such a submission is farfetched in view of the fact that any decision can only emerge provided the litigations come to rest since there have been many rounds of litigation the respondents never had the time to implement earlier orders. In the totality therefore, there are no infirmities in the Orders in question which is required to be interfered with. Writ is dismissed, but with the direction upon the respondents that they ought to carry out the exercise of filing up the post of Anganwari Sevika on the Centre in question, to which the petitioner will also to be a claimant in terms of the observation of the Divisional Commissioner. SKM (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)