IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14245 of 2005 SAVITA DEVI @ SAVITA KUMARI, wife of Barat Paswan, resident of village Shankar Bigha, P.S. Mehandiya, District Arbal … Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through Commissioner cum Secretary cum Director, Samaj Kalyan Vibhag, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 2. The District Magistrate, Arbal 3. The District Welfare Officer, Arbal 4. The Child Development Project Officer, Arbal 5. Mahendra Singh (Mukhiya), Walided Panchayat, P.S. Mehandia, District Arbal 6. Savita Devi, wife of Binod Singh, resident of village Bhikhanpur (Dhavai), P.S. Mehandia, District Arbal … Respondents. ----------- 3. 13.11.2009 Heard counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the State. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ application reads as follows: “(a) Call for the appointment letter and quash the same which date not known by which the respondents appointed respondent no.6 as sevika in Anganwadi Centre located at Shankarbigha, Ward no.10, Walidad Panchayat, P.S. Mehandia, District Arbal which could not available to the petitioner. (b) Directing the respondents to appoint this petitioner as Sevika in the said Anganwadi Centre. With reference to the aforementioned relief counsel for the 2 petitioner would submit that the petitioner has been wrongly denied consideration and appointment on the post of Anganwari Sevika of Ward No.10 located at Shankar Bigha under Walided Panchayat, Mehandia, Arwal and improper selection of respondent no.6 who was even not qualified and eligible for such appointment for aforementioned centre as she neither belongs to the Scheduled Caste category which was beneficiary class of the aforesaid ward and in fact was also not resident of that Mohalla. In the opinion of this Court such grievance relating to question of fact in the first instance ought to have been raised by the petitioner before the Collector of the District who being the prescribed authority under the circular of the State Government was in a better position to decide the same. That being so, this Court would give liberty to the petitioner to file a compact representation as there seems to be some dispute as with regard to earlier representation allegedly filed by the petitioner as contained in Annexure 1. 3 On receipt of such representation the Collector of the District having examined the whole matter as also after hearing the petitioner and respondent no.6 and the representative of the Gram Panchayat would pass an order strictly in accordance with law. Let it be made clear that the Collector of the District would be at liberty to take any independent decision as this Court has not gone into the comparative merits of the claim of the petitioner vis-à- vis respondent no.6. However, such exercise must be completed by the Collector of the District within a period of six months from the date of receipt of such representation. With the aforementioned observations and directions, this application is disposed of. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/