IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2708 of 2010 1. SABNAM KUMARI W/O SRI NAVIN KUMAR PATHAK R/O VILL.- BELARI, P.S.- UJJAIARPUR, DISTT.- SAMASTIPUR Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY DEPTT. OF SOCIAL WELFARE, PATNA 2. DIRECTOR, I.C.D.S. DIRECTORATE, SECRETARIAT, PATNA 3. COMMISSIONER DARBHANGA DIVISION, DARBHANGA 4. COLLECTOR SAMASTIPUR 5. DISTRICT WELFARE OFFICER SAMASTIPUR 6. SUB- DIVISIONAL OFFICER DALSINGSARAI, SAMASTIPUR 7. BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, UJJIARPUR DISTT.- SAMASTIPUR 8. CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER, UJJIARPUR SAMASTIPUR 9. MUKHIYA GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ, BELARI P.S.- UJJIARPUR, DISTT.- SAMASTIPUR ----------- 2. 24.08.2010 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State. On 14.3.2007 a merit list for appointment on the post of Anganwari Sevika at Centre No. 176 was prepared. It is the case of the petitioner that she was at serial no. 1 while another at serial no. 2 was Neelam Devi. The latter came to be appointed in preference to the petitioner. The petitioner appears to have represented when a report was called from the CDPO, submitted on 12.12.2007. The District Magistrate after hearing the petitioner and the person at serial no. 2 set aside the appointment of the latter and has directed a fresh selection process and completion of the same by his order dated 8.2.2008. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner raised the issue of illegal appointment during life of the panel itself and therefore she is entitled to appointment once the appointment of the person at serial no. 2 has been held to be wrong. Counsel for the State points out that the said Neelam Devi is not a party to the writ petition and a statement has been made in para 13 that she had questioned the order dated 8.2.2008 2 unsuccessfully before the Commissioner. It is not known whether she has carried the challenge any further or not and what further orders have or have not been passed. In absence of the Neelam Devi as a party respondent and necessary information in terms of the objection raised on behalf of the State this Court finds it difficult to pass any positive order in the writ petition at this stage. The order impugned of the District Magistrate is dated 8.2.2008. In pursuance of the same, order dated 29.10.2009 has been passed that the validity of the panel expired on 31.12.2008 and the selection process was directed to be completed within 20 days. The writ petition has then been filed on 4.2.2010 i.e. after approximately four months. It is not known whether the process has been completed or not and fresh appointment has been made or not. In absence of necessary up to date information available the only appropriate order to be passed is that if Neelam Devi has not questioned the order dated 8.2.2008 before any forum after the Commissioner, and if no fresh appointment has already been made in pursuance of the order dated 29.10.2009 only in that event is the District Magistrate required to consider the candidature of the petitioner in view of the fact that she had raised the issue during life of the panel itself and that the expiry of the panel during the litigation is of no consequence do deny such appointment as held in (2000) 3 SCC 699 (State of U.P. Vs Ram Swarup Saroj) at para 10 as follows:- “10. Similarly, the plea that a list of selected candidates for appointment to the State services remains valid for a period of one year only is primarily a question depending on facts and yet the plea was not raised before the High Court. Secondly, we find that the select list was finalized 3 in the month of November 1996 and the writ petition was filed by the respondent in the month of October 1997, i.e. before the expiry of one year from the date of the list. Merely because a period of one year has elapsed during the pendency of litigation, we cannot decline to grant the relief to which the respondent has been found entitled by the High Court. We may place on record that during the course of hearing of the SLP before this Court, on 29.9.1999 we had directed the learned Additional Advocate General for the State of U.P. to bring on record on affidavit the status of present recruitment of the judicial officers and the present vacancy position in the subordinate judiciary. In the affidavit of the Joint Secretary, Department of Appointment, State Government, Uttar Pradesh sworn in on 4.11.1999 and filed before this Court it is stated that as on 14.10.1999 there were 231 vacancies existing in the cadre of Munsif Magistrates (now Civil Judge, Junior Division/Judicial Magistrates). That being the factual position we see no reason why the direction made by the High Court should be upset in an appeal preferred by the State of Uttar Pradesh.” Let appropriate order be passed by the District Magistrate within a maximum period of two months from the date of receipt and/or presentation of a copy of this order. The writ application stands disposed. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)