IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C. REV. No.131 of 2008 SMT. SEEMA KUMARI . Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS . ----------- 06. 24.11.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, for the State and private respondent no.7 who has filed counter affidavit. This Civil Review application has been preferred against the order dated 7.11.2007 in C.W.J.C. No. 846 of 2006. I.A. No. 3370 of 2008 has been filed for condoning the delay in filing of the Review Application. Having considered the submissions on behalf of the parties, the Court satisfied that in the interest of justice the delay is fit to be condoned. I.A. No. 3370 of 2008 stands allowed. C.W.J.C. No. 846 of 2006 was filed by the present respondent no.7. The petitioner was respondent no.7 in that writ application. The controversy was with regard to appointment on the post of Anganwari Sewika . This Court held that the petitioner therein (presently respondent no.7) had never been appointed. This Court did not uphold her claims for reasons discussed in the order. She is stated to have then questioned the dismissal of the writ petition with regard to her in L.P.A. No. 1042 of 2007 which was also dismissed on 26.8.2008 and her S.L.P. against the same was also dismissed by the 2 Supreme Court on 15.2.2010 in S.L.P. (Civil) No. 36998 of 2008. In the writ petition with regard to the present petitioner, this Court observed that she appeared to have been selected only, no formal letter of appointment had been issued in her favour and therefore she was in the same boat as the petitioner of that writ application. The counter affidavit alleged irregularities in her appointment. An observation was therefore made that the Court found it difficult to sustain the claim of private respondent no.7. In the Review Application, it is submitted that the appointment letter of the petitioner in accordance with established procedure was already on record in C.W.J.C. No. 846 of 2006 as Annexure- 11 to the writ petition. The order of the Court in C.W.J.C. No. 846 of 2006 therefore suffered from error of record insofar as the present petitioner is concerned. It was also asserted that she was still continuing in service. This Court on 13.5.2010 therefore ordered maintenance of status quo in the present proceedings. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of State in the Review Application. Paragraph-4(II) unequivocally states that 3 the petitioner is still working on the post. Paragraph- 16 of the counter affidavit explicitly states that the petitioner belonged to the beneficiary area, where no applicant was available from O.B.C. or B.C. category and therefore her selection was made. Paragraph-17 asserts that there was no procedural defect in the selection of the petitioner. Paragraph-18 reiterates that the State Officials had not committed any illegality or irregularity in the selection of the petitioner. It is unfortunate that the respondents State Officials had taken a divergent stand against the petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 846 of 2006. It is expected that they shall be more careful in future. In view of the stand of the official respondents and the error on record in the order of this Court noticed hereinabove, the Review Application has to be allowed. The order dated 7.11.2007 in C.W.J.C. No. 846 of 2006 insofar as the petitioner be concerned is therefore recalled and the observations made therein with regard to the present petitioner are likewise recalled. The Review Application stands allowed. P.K. (Navin Sinha, J.)