IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16153 of 2009 1. SAMITA KUMARI W/O MR. RAVINDRA KUMAR VILL- MAHAMDPUR BALVA, P.O. SIRSI DIHRA, P.S. HARNAUT, DISTT. NALANDA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR, THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY GOVT. OF BIHAR, HAVING HIS OFFICE AT OLD SECRETARIAT, PATNA 2. THE DIRECTOR, I.C.D.S. GOVT. OF BIHAR HAVING HIS OFFICE AT INDIRA BHAWAN, 3RD FLOOR, HARTARI CHOWK, PATNA 3. THE DIRECTOR SOCIAL WELFARE DEPTT., GOVT. OF BIHAR HAVING HIS OFFICE AT OLD SECRETARIAT, PATNA 4. THE COMMISSIONER-CUM-SECRETARY WELFARE DEPTT. HAVING HIS OFFICE AT OLD SECRETARIAT, PATNA 5. THE DISTRICT WELFARE OFFICER NALANDA HIS OFFICE AT COLLECTORIATE CAMPUS, BIHAR SHARIF (NALANDA) 6. THE CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER HAVING HER OFFICE AT HARNAUT BLOCK, P.O. & P.S. HARNAUT, DISTT. NALANDA with CWJC No.16070 of 2009 1. PREMLATA KUMARI W/O DILIP KUMAR AZAD R/O VILL.- POARI, P.S.- HARNAUT, DISTT.- NALANDA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY GOVT. OF BIHAR HAVING HIS OFFICE AT OLD SECRETARIAT PATNA, P.O. PATNA, G.P.O. P.S. SACHIWALAYA, DISTT.- PATNA 2. THE DIRECTOR OF SOCIAL WELFARE GOVT. OF BIHAR HAVING HIS OFFICE AT OLD SECRETARIAT PATNA, P.O. PATNA, G.P.O., P.S. SACHIWALAYA, DISTT.- PATNA 3. THE DIRECTOR, I.C.D.S. BIHAR HAVING HIS OFFICE AT INDIRA BHAWAN 3RD FLOOR, HADTALI CHAWK, PATNA 4. THE COMMISSIONER-CUM-SECRETARY, WELFARE DEPTT., GOVT. OF BIHAR null HAVING HIS OFFICE AT OLD SECRETARIAT, P.O.- PATNA G.P.O., P.S. SACHIWALAYA, DISTT.- PATNA 5. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, NALANDA OF BIHARSHARIF HAVING HIS OFFICE AT BIHARSHARIF COLLECTRATE, P.O.- BIHARSHARIF, P.S. BIHARSHARIF, DISTT.- NALANDA 6. DISTRICT WELFARE OFFICER, NALANDA AT BIHARSHARIF HAVING HIS OFFICE AT BIHARSHARIF COLLECTRATE, P.O. & P.S.- BIHARSHARIF, DISTT.- NALANDA 7. CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER, HARNAUT HAVING HER OFFICE AT HARNAUT BLOCK, P.O. & P.S. HARNAUT, DISTT.- NALANDA ----------- 2. 04.01.2010 After some argument, learned counsel moulds the submission to urge that if the petitioners apply for the post of Anganbari Sevika in pursuance of any fresh advertisement, their applications should be considered afresh in accordance with law and the orders passed in Civil Review No. 69 of 2005 should not prejudice their consideration. Learned counsel for the State rightly submits that any fresh application by the petitioner is entirely different matter, when they have right to be considered in accordance with law. 2 The writ applications stand disposed in the aforesaid terms. AKS/ (Navin Sinha, J.)