IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8451 of 2003 PARWATI DEVI wife of Mithilesh Rai, resident of village Mani K. Patti, P. S. Mahanar, District Vaishali… Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. the Secretary, Deptt. Of welfare, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 3. The District Magistrate, Vaishali. 4. The District Welfare Officer-cum-District Project Officer, Vaishali. 5. the Child Development Project Officer, Mahanar, District Vaishali. 6. Smt. Renu Kumari, w/o Vinod Rai, Resident of Village Mani K. Patti, P. S. Mahanar, District. Vaishali… … respondents. ----------- 3. 09.11.2009. Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. Prayer made in this writ application of the petitioner reads as follows:- “1. That by this writ application the petitioner prays for issuance of an appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, direction/ directions commanding the respondent for making appointment of the petitioner on the post of Angan Bari Sevika at the Manik Pati Centre under Gram Panchayat Raj Saran Mathur in Mahanar Block, by quashing the order dated 28.11.2002 by which the respondent no. 6 has been appointed on the said post illegally and arbitrarily contrary to the law laid down in this regard.” It may be noted that since the appointment of respondent no. 6 was in question, this court vide order dated 2 29.9.2003 had issued notice on respondent no. 6 but despite service report received by the office of this court showing service of notice on respondent no. 6, no one appears on behalf of respondent no. 6 and therefore this writ application has to be now disposed of without hearing her. It is not in doubt that the appointment of respondent no. 6 was made by an order dated 28.11.2002 by which period 73rd amendment was made in the Constitution vesting the power of transacting business of Gram Panchayat by way of strengthening the concept of democracy grass root levels in the body namely Gram Panchayat itself and the Circular of State Government dated 25.9.2001 issued by the Social Welfare Department had envisaged that appointment of Anganwari Sewika would be made by the concerned Gram Panchayat in the manner prescribed. It is the case of the petitioner that no procedure as envisaged in the aforementioned circular was followed in the appointment of respondent no. 6 and the appointment was made on the basis of earlier 3 circular of the State Government dated 13. 6. 1998 (annexure- A to the counter affidavit). Counsel for the State is also not in a position to improve the situation because his case in the counter affidavit is that respondent no. 6 was appointed pursuant to the procedure as envisaged in Circular dated 13.6.1998 (annexure- A). This court would therefore find that appointment of respondent no. 6 was not made in the prescribed manner by the gram Panchayat which became the sole repository of the power of appointment of Anganwari Sewika in the year 2001. In that view of the matter, the appointment of respondent no. 6 cannot be sustained and the same is hereby set aside. As a consequence of setting aside the appointment of respondent no. 6, the petitioner will not be directly appointed but infact a fresh selection would be held in which petitioner, respondent no. 6 and other eligible candidates will be given liberty to participate in the selection. Since the petitioner has remained awaiting for a period 4 of six years before this Court, such exercise by the concerned authority for appointment on the post of Anganbari Sevika on the post earlier held by respondent no. 6 must be completed within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Since the petitioner was before this court for a period of six years while assailing the appointment of respondent no. 6, she should be granted relaxation of six years only in age while considering her case for the appointment on the post of Anganbari Sevika. With the aforementioned observations and directions, this writ application is disposed of. kanchan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)