IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15714 of 2004 DAIWANTI DEVI @ DAMYANT DEVI wife of Ramakant Choubey, resident of village- Sheo Sagar, P. S.- Sheo Sagar, District- Rohtas…. Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Secretary, Welfare Department Government of Bihar. 3. Child Development Project Officer, Sheosagar, Rohtas. 4. District Programme Officer, Sasaram, Rohtas. 5. Sarita Devi wife of Suresh Kumar Gupta, resident of village-Sheosagar, P.S.- Sheosagar, District-Rohtas .. Respondents. ----------- 3. 12.11.2009. Heard counsel for the petitioner, counsel for the State as also counsel for private respondent no.5. Prayer made in this writ application of the petitioner reads as follows:- “That this is an application for issuing appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents for quashing the entire process of selection to the post of Anganwari Sevika in Sheo Sagar Panchayat on 12.9.2004 including the selection of the respondent no. 5 to the said post as arbitrary, illegal and mala fide and for direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner who is more qualified and experienced for appointment on the said post.” With reference to the aforementioned reliefs, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that appointment of respondent no. 5 is void ab initio inasmuch as her selection and appointment was made by the Child Development Project Officer, Sheosagar in his individual 2 capacity without even allowing the Mukhia of the Gran Panchayat to participate in the said selection. He would further submit that respondent no. 5 is not only lesser qualified in comparison to the petitioner but is even otherwise inferior to petitioner on each and every parameter fixed by the State Government in its circular for appointment on the post of Anganbari Sewika. Counsel for private respondent no. 5 on the other hand would submit that these questions of facts in the first instance could have been raised by the petitioner before the Collector of the district who in different circulars issued by the State Government on the subject has been vested full power to look into any aspect of selection/appointment of Anganbari Sevika/ Sahayika. Counsel for the State on the other hand would submit that the petitioner is reeling under a misguided impression that selection/ appointment of respondent no. 5 was made by CDPO in his individual capacity rather such selection and appointment of respondent no. 5 was under a decision taken by Gram Sabha in its meeting convened specifically for the purpose of selection and appointment of Anganwari Sewika. 3 Counsel for the petitioner, in reply, would submit that the aforementioned stand, contrary to real state of affairs has been taken by official respondent no. 3 and 4 in the counter-affidavit and the petitioner if given an opportunity could demonstrate that the appointment of respondent no. 5 was bad and illegal. In the opinion of this court, it will be a futile exercise to keep the matter pending specially when the petitioner has not denied the facts stated in the counter affidavit in a period over four and half years though copy of such counter affidavit was served on the counsel for the petitioner way back on 17.2.2005. Nonetheless, in order to satisfy the petitioner’s grievance, this court would deem it expedient in the ends of justice to give an opportunity to the petitioner for filing a compact representation before the Collector of the District who having called for and perused the records of such selection and/or appointment of respondent no. 5 and after hearing the petitioner, respondent no. 5 and representative of Gram Panchayat would take an appropriate decision by a speaking order in accordance with the circular of the State Government which was applicable and in force on the date of 4 appointment of respondent no. 5 within a period of six months from the date of filing of such representation by the petitioner. Let it be made clear that this court has expressed no opinion on the merits of the claim of the parties and therefore it would be open to District Magistrate/ Collector of the District being the prescribed authority under the circulars of the State Government to take any appropriate decision in accordance with law. With the aforementioned observations and directions, this writ application is disposed of. kanchan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)