IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10895 of 2007 Sunita Devi, Wife of Ram Babu Singh, Resident of Village Nazirganj, P.S. Janta Bazar, District Saran. --------- Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar, through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Director, Integrated Child Development Service, Social Welfare Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The District Magistrate, Saran. 4. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Saran. 5. Circle Officer cum Child Development Project Officer, Lahladpur, Saran. 6. Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Raj, Purusottampur, P.S. Janta Bazar, District Saran. 7. Panchayat Sewak Gram Panchayat Raj, Purusottampur, P.S. Janta Bazar, District Saran. 8. Geeta Devi, Wife of Mukund Madhav Singh, Resident of Village Nazirganj, P.S. Janta Bazar, District Saran. --------- Respondents ----------- 2 3.12.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ application reads as follows:- “1. That by filing the instant petition, the petitioner seeks indulgence of this Hon’ble Court for issuance of an in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents authorities to select the petitioner against the post of Anganbari Sewika for the Anganbari Center, Nazirganj under Gram Panchayat Raj Purusottampur in the District of Saran (Chapra) and canceling the respondent No.8 Geeta Devi against the aforesaid post who has illegally been selected and she has less marks than petitioner and beyond the guideline issued by the government of Bihar.” 2 With reference to the aforementioned relief, when a query was made from the counsel for petitioner as to whether the petitioner had moved before the competent authority, namely, the Collector of the district as with regard to the alleged anomaly in the appointment/selection of the respondent no.8, initially learned counsel for the petitioner would refer to Annexure-2, a representation addressed to the Collector, which to say the least is not at all in respect of the grievance which has been raised in this writ application, inasmuch as, there the petitioner had only complained about the non- consideration of her case by Mukhiya on the ground that he was demanding amount by way of illegal gratification for considering the case of the petitioner and had torn her application. Learned counsel for the petitioner when asked to explain as to how and why Annexure-2 would be referable to the relief made in this writ application, he had failed to give any satisfactory answer to this court barring by taking a plea that subsequently Annexure-5 was also filed with 3 regard to anomaly in the selection/appointment of the respondent no.8. This Court, having given anxious consideration to the aforementioned submissions, would feel that this writ application is premature as with regard to the aforementioned claim of the petitioner as being raised in this writ application. The petitioner had filed Annexure-2 at the point of time on 1.6.2007 when her case was allegedly not been considered by the Mukhia and the Gram Panchayat but now when the petitioner herself admits that her application was subsequently entertained and her case was placed before the Gram Sabha wherein selection of respondent no.8 was made, this Court must hold that Annexure-2 or Annexure-5 were not the representation filed by the petitioner on the subject. That being so, when the State Government has in its guidelines/circular on the subject prescribed the Collector of the district to decide the question as with regard to any infirmity/anomaly in the selection/appointment of the Anganbari Sevika, this writ application 4 must be held to be premature and the same is accordingly dismissed. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner would seek leave of this Court to file a representation before the Collector of the district. This Court without expressing any opinion on such prayer of the counsel of the petitioner would simply accord him to do so and in the event, the petitioner will file such a representation, the same will be looked into and decided by the Collector on its own merit without being prejudiced by the order of dismissal of this writ application. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)