IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9893 of 2005 VANITA KUMARI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 6 15.5.2008 Heard learned counsel for the parties. There are certain disputed question of facts which prevents this Court from rendering its final opinion with regard to the claim of the petitioner that even if she was selected by Aam Sabha ( General Meeting) and her name figures as a selected candidate she was illegally denied the post of Aangan Bari Sewika by making interpolation in the record at the behest of certain interested party. An affidavit on behalf of the State has been filed from where the allegation made by the petitioner cannot be accepted in toto. This is the matter which may require some enquiry or looking into the matter by referring to the original proceeding book and the document which may be available at the local level. The selected candidate is represented by Mr. Sunil Kumar, learned advocate. He has filed his affidavit and taken a categorical stand that all is well and the assertion of the petitioner is only a figment of her imagination. He does accept the proposition that under the scheme of thing the competent authority to get the matter verified as well as decided, is the District Magistrate, He has relied on a recent decision rendered in the case of Lalita Kumari vrs. The State of Bihar along with other analogous cases reported in PLJR 2007(4) 505. - 2 - In view of the above this writ application is disposed of with liberty to petitioner to avail of the remedy in terms of the guidelines issued in this regard. It is hoped and expected that once the petitioner approaches the District Magistrate, the District Magistrate shall get the matter examined with due priority preferably within a period of three months. This writ application is disposed of with the above direction. RPS (Ajay Kumar Tripathi,J.)