IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9303 of 2009 CHANCHALA KUMARI, WIFE OF SRI ANIL KUMAR SINGH @ ANIL SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-BISHUNPUR CHOWK PAKAR, P.O. MADHOPUR HAZARI, P.S. SAHEBGANJ, DISTRICT-MUZAFFARPUR …….. PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Principal Secretary , Human Resources Development Department, Bihar, Patna. 3. The Director, Primary Education, Government of Bihar, Patna. 4. The District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur. 5. The District Superintendent of Education, Muzaffarpur, District-Muzaffarpur. 6. The Deputy Development Commissioner, Muzaffarpur, District-Muzaffarpur. 7. The Block Development Officer , Sahebganj, District-Muzaffarpur. 8. The Block Education Extension Officer, Sahebganj, District-Muzaffarpur. 9. The Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Raj, Bangara Nizamat, Block-Sahebganj, District-Muzaffarpur. 10. The Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Raj, Bangara Nizamat, Block- Sahebganj, District-Muzaffarpur. 11. Archana Kumari, daughter of Sri Uday Kumar Singh, Resident of village- Bangara Nizamat, Block-Sahebganj, District-Muzaffarpur. ……….. …………. Respondents. ----------- 2. 17.08.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing for the state. Petitioner has grievance that she could not be appointed in the year, 2005 on the post of Panchayat Shikcha Mitra due to non-production of Residential Certificate. The Residential Certificate as alleged by the petitioner, was intentionaly, not issued in her favour at the instance of Mukhiya of the Gram Panchayat, who wanted that his grand daughter, next to the petitioner in the selection panel, should be engaged. I find that earlier for similar relief, the petitioner had come before this court by filing C.W.J.C. No. 1930 of 2008. But the petitioner did not press that writ application and simply prayed for disposal of her case so that she could pursue 2 representation pending before respondent No. 4. Now the respondent No. 4 has disposed of petitioner’s representation deciding against him, on account of non-production of Residential Certificate, not available at that time, she was not appointed as its production was essential. I do not find that the respondent No. 4 has committed any mistake by deciding against the petitioner on account of non-production of Residential Certificate. She had not claimed for being appointed on the post. This writ application is dismissed. akv/ ( Mridula Mishra, J )