IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8143 of 2007 JAYANTI KUMARI wife of Shri Subodh Kumar Sah resident of village Harda, P. S. K. Hat (O.p. Moranga) Block- Purnea East, in the District of Purnea. … Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Secretary, Department of Welfare, Bihar, Patna. 2. The Commissioner, Purnea Division, Purnea. 3. D. M. Purnea. 4. District Panchayat Raj Padadhikari, Distt.- Purnea. 5. District Programe Officer, Purnea. 6. District Welfare Officer, Distt- Purnea. 7. The B.D.O. Purnea, East Block, Purnea Dist. Purnea. 7(a) Supervisor, Integrated Child Development Project, East Block, Purnea. 8. The Mukhiya of Gram Panchayat at Harda, Block Purnea, East Distt.-Purnea. 9. The Secretary of Gram Panchayat, Harda, Anchal Block, P. S. K. Hat (O.P. Moranga) District- Purnea. 10. Smt. Arti Kumari w/o Mukesh Gupta resident of village- Harda, P. S. K. Hat (Moranga) O. P. Centre No. 7. Distt. Purnea. ----------- 2. 01.12.2009. Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ application reads as follows:- “1. That the petitioner has come up before this Hon’ble Court for issuance of appropriate writ/writs in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondents to appoint the petitioner for the post of Anganbari Sevika in Centre No. 7 of Gram Panchayat Harda in Block Purnea East in the District of Purnea and quashing the appointment of respondent no. 10 on the post of Anganwari Sevika.” 2 With reference to the aforementioned reliefs, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that not only the petitioner was having a better claim for her selection and engagement on the post of Aganwari Sevika on the basis of having a higher percentage of marks as against respondent no. 10 but in fact respondent no. 10 even otherwise was disqualified as her husband is a member of Vidhyalay Shiksha Samiti. Counsel for the State would submit that these pure question of facts in the first instance ought to have been raised before the Collector of the District who is prescribed authority under the circulars of the State Government and since the petitioner has not done so his present writ application seems to be premature. In the opinion of this court, counsel for the State seems to be correct to the extent that when in a scheme framed by the State Government the Collector of the District has been assigned the duty of looking into the alleged anomaly in the 3 selection and appointment of Anganwari Sevika that by itself is an alternative remedy wherein all the questions of facts can be effectively decided by the said authority. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had filed a representation to the Divisional Commissioner, Purnea in fact would not be an answer to the requirement under the Circular of the State prescribing the Collector of the District to enquire into the matter and examine the alleged anomalies in selection and appointment on the post of Anganbari Sevika more so it is only such decision of the Collector which can be made subject matter of further scrutiny by way of an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner. That being so, this court must hold this writ application to be premature and consequently the same is dismissed with an observation that the petitioner, if so advised, may file her compact representation to the Collector of the District who would 4 look into the same and if he would find any merit in the same, he would issue notice to respondent no. 10 as also concerned gram Panchayat and decide the matter after hearing all of them by a speaking order within a period of six months of filing such representation. kanchan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)