IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4654 of 2009 Rupam Kumari @ Rupam Devi, W/o Sri Subodh Kumar Singh, resident of village Chorgaon, P.S. Asarganj, District Munger………………………………………………..….Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through Director, Social Welfare, Bihar, Patna. 2. District Magistrate, Munger. 3. Divisional Commissioner, Munger Division, Munger. 4. Child Development Project Officer, Asharganj, Munger. 5. District Programme Officer, Munger…………………………………………………………..Respondents ----------- 2. 11.02.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the State. The Commissioner has rejected the appeal of the petitioner by Annexure-2. The ground for rejection is that the husband of the petitioner is an employee of the Food Corporation India and petitioner did not belong to the majority class of the beneficiary area. Though the first ground may not be quite correct, as the certificate of the F.C.I. (Annexure-3) with the interlocutory application shows that the husband of the petitioner is being engaged as Handing Labour Incharge under direct payment system/ no work no pay system since 1995, but the second ground that the petitioner does not belong to 2 the majority class of the beneficiary area appears to be correct. As per submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, petitioner is Kushwaha and belongs to the backward class strength of which is 376 only in the beneficiary area whereas strength of extremely backward class is 660, as appearing from the last page of Annexure-2 with the interlocutory application. In the circumstances, as per the guidelines, appointment as Anganwari Sevika was to be made for the centre from the majority class i.e. extremely backward class to which the petitioner admittedly does not belong. However, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that that none of the authorities has thought it appropriate to verify first as to whether, in fact, there was any applicant in the selection process from the majority class of the beneficiary area i. e. extremely backward class or not. He submits that though it is not pleaded in the writ application and not said in the affidavit but it may be that in absence of any applicant 3 from the majority class, petitioner’s application was considered and she was engaged as she belonged to the next majority class of the beneficiary area. If that was the case then obviously petitioner’s engagement could not be cancelled on the ground that she did not belong to the majority class. However, since admittedly there is no pleading on record, it is not appropriate for this Court to consider this aspect of the matter. In the circumstances, if the petitioner represents before the Collector in the matter, her representation shall be considered and the facts shall be verified from the records and thereafter appropriate orders shall be passed by the Collector preferably within the time limit fixed under the guidelines for disposal of the said matter. The writ application is disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. BT (J. N. Singh, J.)