IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3661 of 2005 1. Punam Kumari, wife of Sri Mohan Raut, Resident of Village-Rajmanik Chauk, Police Station- Runnisaidpur, District-Sitamarhi. 2. Reena Kumari, wife of Sri Satrudhan Sharma, Resident of Village-Rajmanik Chauk, Police Station-Runnisaidpur, District-Sitamarhi. ................... Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Bihar through District Magistrate, Sitamarhi. 2. The District Development Commissioner, Sitamarhi. 3. The District Welfare Officer, District- Sitamarhi. 4. The District Panchayati Raj Officer, Sitamarhi. 5. The Block Development Officer, Runnisaidpur, Block District-Sitamarhi. 6. The Mukhiya Rajmanik Chauk Panchayat, Runnisaidpur Block, District-Sitamarhi. .................... Respondents ----------- 3. 12.11.2009 Heard counsel for the parties. The prayer of the petitioners in this writ application reads as follows : - "That this writ application is being filed for issuance of an appropriate writ/writs, order/orders directing the Respondent no. 1 to examine the matter of illegally appointed persons for the post of Anganbari Sevika and Anganbari Assistant by the Respondent no. 5 ignoring the direction issued by the Government of Bihar and further cancel the illegal above mention appointment and further direct the Respondents to appoint the Petitioners on the post of Anganbari Sevika and 2 Anganbari Assistant considering the qualification as and the merit list prepared in the Panchayat and further for any other relief/reliefs for which the petitioners are entitled to the facts and circumstances of this case." Earlier when the case of the petitioners was heard by this Court on 9.10.2006, this Court had passed the following order:- "Learned counsel for the petitioners, and Ms. Brijita Prakash, JC to GP IX, are present. Learned Govt. counsel raises a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of this writ petition and submits that the persons whose appointments have been challenged, have not been impleaded as party respondents. It is, therefore, submitted that the writ petition cannot proceed in their absence. The preliminary objection shall be considered after completion of pleadings. As prayed for by her, four weeks' time is granted to file the counter affidavit. Put up after two months. the time in the meanwhile may be utilised by the parties for completion of pleadings." 3 Counsel for the petitioners thus now having realized the limitations as is recorded in the aforesaid order of this Court dated 9.10.2006 would seek liberty to withdraw this application with a leave to the petitioners to file an exhaustive representation as with regard to the relief prayed for in this writ application. This Court without expressing any opinion on the merits of such submission of the counsel for the petitioner would simply accord permission to withdraw this application. It goes without saying that if the petitioners would file a representation the same would be examined by the Collector of the District and disposed of in accordance with law expeditiously, preferably within a period of six months. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/