IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2245 of 2004 MANJU KUMARI, wife of Krishna Kumar Thakur, Resident of Village Ratanpur, P.S. Saraiya, District Muzaffarpur… Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. the Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Welfare Department Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Commissioner, Tirhut Division at Muzaffapur. 4. The District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur. 5. The Deputy Development Commissioner-cum- Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Muzaffarpur. 6. The District Welfare Officer, Muzaffapur. 7. the Chief Development Project Officer, Saraiya, District Muzaffarpur. 8. the Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Raj, Gopi-Dhanwat, Police Station Saraiya, District Muzaffarpur. 9. Rinku Kumari, w/0 Late Ranga Lal Mishra, Resident of Village Ratanpura, P. S. Saraiya, District. Muzaffarpur. … Respondents. ----------- 9. 09.11.2009. No one appears for the petitioner. However counsel for the State as also counsel for private respondent are present. The prayer made in this writ petition of the petitioner reads as follows:- “1. That this application is directed against the order issued vide Memo No. 11/MU/Zila Parishad, dated 4.3.2003 by the Deputy Development Commissioner-cum- Chief Executive Engineer, Zila Parishad, Muzaffarpur, respondent no. 5, as contained in Annexure-3 whereby and whereunder respondent no. 5 has cancelled the selection of the petitionier as Anganbari Sewika at Centre No. 149 of Gopi-Dhanpat Panchayat of Saraiya Block, P. S. Saraiya Muzaffarpur and the prayer herein is for the issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of a writ of certiorari 2 for quashing the aforesaid order, as contained in Annexure-3 as well as for the issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to proceed with the appointment of the petitioner on the basis of the selection list dated 2.11.2003.” Apparently against the aforementioned prayer of cancellation of selection of the petitioner on the post of Anganwari Sewika she had alternative remedy but she had moved before this court without exhausting the same. In that view of the matter, this application is premature and is dismissed accordingly with a liberty to the petitioner to avail the same. kanchan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)