IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14933 of 2009 1. Manju Kumari wife of Shive Prakash Prasad, R.O.V Surari Immam Nagar, P.O. and Gram Panchayt Surari Immam Nagar, P.s. Halsi, Dit-Lakhisarai. 2. Shiv Prakash Prasad S/O Sri Parmeshwar Mahto @Puro Mahto Resident of Surari Immam Nagar, P.O. and Gram Panchayat Surari Immam Nagar, Imman Nagar, P.S. Halsi, Distt. Lakhisarai. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Collector, Lakhisarai. 3. The District Welfare Officer, Lakhisarai. 4. District Programme Officer, Lakhisarai. 5. Child Development Officer, Ramgarh. 6. Md. Hussain Immam, X. Mukhiya, Resident and P.S. Surari, Immam Nagar, P.S. Halsi, Dist-Lakhisarai. 7. Gita Kumari wife of Binod Prasad, R.O.V and P.O. Surari Immam Nagar, P.S. Halsi, Dist-Lakhisarai. with CWJC No.5708 of 2009 Manju Kumari wife of Shive Prakash Prasad, R.O.V Surari Immam Nagar, P.O. and Gram Panchayt Surari Immam Nagar, P.s. Halsi, Ditt-Lakhisarai. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2 The Collector, Lakhisarai. 3 The District Welfare Officer, Lakhisarai. 4 District Programme Officer, Lakhisarai. 5 Child Development Officer, Ramgarh. 6 Md. Hussain Immam, X. Mukhiya, Resident and P.S. Surari, Immam Nagar, P.S. Halsi, Dist-Lakhisarai. 7. Gita Kumari wife of Binod Prasad, R.O.V and P.O. Surari Immam Nagar, P.S. Halsi, Dist-Lakhisarai ----------- 3. 06.05.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the State as well as learned counsel for the respondents. First writ application has been filed by the writ petitioner for a direction to the respondents to appoint her as Anganbari Sevika in the light of the fact that the appointment of respondent No. 7 was cancelled by the District Programme 2 Officer, by order contained in Annexure-1. The second writ application has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order of the Collector as contained in Annexure-7. From Anenxure-7, it appears that respondent No. 7 had moved this Court challenging the said order of cancellation of her engagement passed by the District Programme Officer. It was submitted before the Court that the said petitioner had already filed an appeal before the District Magistrate. It was also submitted that her engagement was wrongly cancelled on the ground that she was 8th pass, as 8th pass was the minimum qualification for appointment of Anganbari Sevika and the respondents were wrong in their finding that she had obtained her appointment on forged Matriculation Certificate. However, since the said petitioner had already filed an appeal before the District Magistrate, this Court disposed of her writ application with a direction to the District Magistrate to consider her representation within one month with direction to him to be satisfied that minimum qualification for appointment on the post of Anganbari Sevika was 8th pass and then to appoint her again. Pursuant to the said order the Collector has passed order which is annexed as Annexure-7 and has been challenged by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that 8th pass was never a minimum eligibility for appointment of Anganbari Sevika. He submits that the minimum eligibility for appointment of Anganbari Sevika was Matriculation pass or fail which has been 3 clarified by the Government circulars that a candidate must show that she had appeared in the examination of Matriculation and had actually failed. Hence, he submits that the order is of the Collector is in the teeth of the Government letters and clarifications in this regard with regard to the minimum qualification required for appointment of Anganbari Sevikas. The order of the Collector is on merit and therefore, the petitioner has a remedy before the Divisional Commissioner by way of an appeal against the same. Since the vary satisfaction of the Collector is under challenge the order of this Court passed earlier can not come in the way of the petitioner in availing her remedy in appeal. In the circumstances, the writ application is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to file her appeal before the Divisional Commissioner in accordance with the Guidelines within one month from today. If such an appeal is filed by the petitioner before the Divisional Commissioner the period of pendency of this writ application in this Court shall be deducted from the period of limitation in filing the appeal. The Commissioner shall issue notice to the parties, hear them and dispose of the same within three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Writ applications are disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. Prakash ( J.N.Singh, J.)