IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9897 of 2007 Sabitri Devi, Wife of Manager Ram, Resident of Baswaria, Ward No.24, Ambedkar Colony, P.S. Bettiah Town, District West Champran. ----------- Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Commissioner, Tirhut Range, Muzaffarpur. 3. The Collector, West Champaran, Bettiah. 4. The Deputy Development Commissioner, West Champaran, Bettiah. 5. The District Welfare Officer, West Champaran, Bettiah. 6. The Child Development Project Officer, Bettiah, West Champaran. 7. The Chairman, Bettiah Municipality, West Champaran. 8. The Head Clerk, Bal Vikash Pariyojna, Bettiah, Cum-Secretary, Selection Committee, Bettiah Municipality, West Champaran. -------- Respondents ----------- 3 1.12.2009 Heard Mr. Satyavrat Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. The prayer of the petitioner in fact in this writ application remains confined only to the following extent:- “1. That this is an application for issuance of a writ in the nature of a writ of mandamus, or any other appropriate writ order, direction commanding the Respondents particularly Respondent No.3, to dispose of the representation of the Petitioner dated 22.05.2007, (Annexure – 4). By the representation dated 22.05.2007, the Petitioner has brought to the knowledge of the Respondent No.3, the malpractices adopted in the 2 selection of Anganbari Sevika for Ward No.24, Ambedkar Colony, Bettiah and that despite the fact that the Petitioner had secured first position in the merit list, still person below in merit has been selected. The Petitioner further prays for issuance of a consequential writ of mandamus commanding the Respondents to make appointments strictly commanding the Respondents to make appointments strictly in accordance with law.” As a matter of fact, for the aforementioned relief, there would not be any difficulty for this Court to issue a consequential direction but then Mr. Verma would expand his submission by taking a plea that there was an apparent anomaly in the selection made on the post of Anganbari Sevika in question by changing the records by Mukhia and C.D.P.O. simply because the petitioner had failed to oblige the Mukhia by paying illegal gratification demanded from her and payment of a bigger amount by the person selected in her place. The Counsel has thus assailed the whole selection and the consequential appointment on the post of Anganbari Sevika which according 3 to him was made in complete breach of the Guidelines laid down by the State Government. This Court on perusal of the materials available on record as placed by the petitioner herself either in this writ application or in the supplementary affidavit would find that as a matter of fact, this very appointment with the allegation of pecuniary consideration therein was made subject matter of a Complaint Case No. 777C/2007 filed before C.J.M., Bettiah wherein an enquiry report was submitted by Child Development Project Officer, Bettiah, West Champaran, wherein, each and every part of allegation of the petitioner including the demand of illegal gratification was found to be wholly without substance. Thus, in view of the fact that the petitioner at the same time was knocking the door of the Collector of the district by filing a representation dated 22.5.2007 as contained in Annexure-4 to this writ application and had also filed a complaint petition in the court almost in the same period on 20.4.2007 as contained in Annexure-7 to the supplementary affidavit, whereafter, a 4 report was submitted by the Child Development Project Officer on 12.6.2007, this Court would find that the present writ application filed on 7.8.2007 was not only premature but also in haste. The petitioner was supposed to give some time either to the Collector of the district or to the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate for coming to a final decision and therefore, this Court would only direct the Collector of the district to look into the representation filed by the petitioner if the complaint petition filed by the petitioner before C.J.M, Bettiah has still not been finally disposed of. The petitioner will have to choose the remedy of either agitating her grievance before the Collector of the district or before the Chief Judicial Magistrate and in the event, the petitioner chooses to continue with the criminal case, the Collector of the district will not be required to pass any order but, on the contrary, if the petitioner would withdraw/abadon the criminal case, the Collector of the district will have to decide the matter on merit. That being so, this application is 5 disposed of with a direction to the Collector to pass an appropriate reasoned order in the aforementioned terms within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)