IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9391 of 2010 1. Manju Devi W/O Ram Sewak Mukhiya R/O Vill.- Dhobiyahi, P.S.- Laukahi, Distt.- Madhubani 2. Murti Devi W/O Ram Balak Mukhiya R/O Vill.- Dhobiyahi, P.S.- Laukahi, Distt.- Madhubani Versus 1. The State Of Bihar Through The Secretary Social Welfare Department, Bihar, Patna 2. The Commissioner, Darbhanga Division, Darbhanga 3. The Director, I.C.D.S., Bihar, Patna 4. The District Magistrate, Madhubani 5. The District Programme Officer, Madhubani 6. The Child Development Project Officer, Laukahi, Distt.- Madhubani 7. The Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Raj Jhahuri, Distt.- Madhubani 8. The Panchayat Sewak, Gram Panchayat Raj Jhahuri Distt.- Madhubani ----------- 5. 19.10.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent nos. 4 to 6. No counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Commissioner, Darbhanga Division, respondent no. 2. It is submitted that the petitioners were working as an Anganwari Sewika and Sahayika in Jhahuri Panchayat Mallahi Tolla Centre No. 137. They were terminated by the order of the District Magistrate dated 26.10.2009 as communicated to them on 5.11.2009. The petitioners were also heard by the District Magistrate. In C.W.J.C. No. 18074 of 2009 preferred by the petitioners, on an objection by the State to the remedy of appeal available before the 2 Commissioner of the Division, the application was disposed with directions to avail the alternative remedy along with additional observation that if they seek interim relief, the latter application was required to be disposed off within a period of two weeks as distinct from the disposal of the appeal itself. It is submitted that the petitioners filed such Appeal on 25.5.2010 numbered as 63 of 2010 and further sought stay of process for further appointment. The Commissioner however has not passed any orders on the stay application even while the respondents are proceeding ahead for fresh selection in pursuance of an advertisement published on 19.5.2010. The submission therefore is that the application for interim relief cannot be rendered infructuous by refusing to decide the same and then perhaps urge that in the changed circumstances and fresh appointments made, their grievance had become infructuous. The counter affidavit on behalf of respondent nos. 4 to 6 dealing with the assertions with regard to the pendency of the appeal and the interim application states that they are matters of record and need no comment. The writ petition was filed nearly one year three months ago but no counter affidavit has been 3 filed by the Commissioner. Counsel for the State is unable to assist the Court as to what has happened to the Appeal or the application for interim relief. On 10.6.2010 this Court had passed interim orders for two posts to be kept vacant till the disposal of the writ application or the Appeal filed by the petitioners. Since the Commissioner failed to assist the Court by placing on record either that the application for interim relief has been disposed or that the Appeal itself has been disposed, the interim order dated 10.6.2010 is made absolute to the extent till the Appeal is not decided, the posts on which the petitioners were working shall be kept vacant to be filled up in accordance with law subject to the final order in Appeal. It is now for the Commissioner to decide how soon he would like to dispose the Appeal. It shall be obligatory for the petitioners to place this order before the Commissioner within a maximum period of two weeks from today failing which the writ application shall be deemed to have been dismissed and the Commissioner shall be under no further obligation. The writ application stands disposed. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)