IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16646 of 2009 1. BINDA KUMARI W/O YOGENDRA KUMAR R/O VILL.- SIDARIYA, P.S.- FATEHPUR, DISTT.- GAYA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPTT. OF SOCIAL WELFARE, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE COMMISSIONER MAGADH DIVISION, GAYA 3. THE COLLECTOR GAYA 4. THE SECRETARY OF COMMISSIONER MAGADH DIVISION, GAYA 5. THE DISTRICT WELFARE OFFICER DISTT.- GAYA 6. THE CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER BLOCK- FATEHPUR, DISTT.- GAYA 7. THE MUKHIYA, GRAMPANCHAYAT DUMARICHATTI P.S.- FATEHPUR, DISTT.- GAYA 8. THE PANCHAYAT SEVAK GRAMPANCHAYAT DUMARICHATTI, P.S.- FATEHPUR, DISTT.- GAYA 9. NUTAN KUMARI W/O SANJEET KUMAR R/O VILL.- SIDARIYA, P.S.- FATEHPUR, DISTT.- GAYA, IN FACT HER CORRECT ADDRESS IS NOOTAN KUMARI W/O SANJEET KUMAR (SON OF GOVIND PRASAD), R/O MOHALLA- MALGODAM, P.S.- NAWADA, DISTT.- NAWADA ----------- 2. 19.01.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. A panel for appointment on the post of Anganbari Sevika was prepared on 31.5.2007. The validity of this panel was till 31.12.2008. Another candidate was at serial 1, the petitioner was at serial 2 and Respondent no. 9 at serial 3. Respondent no. 9 questioned the appointment of the candidate at serial 1 when it came to be set aside by the District Magistrate on 17.6.2008 holding that she has obtained appointment on a forged certificate. Thereafter the person at serial 3 of the panel has been appointed on 4.4.2009. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the appointment of the candidate at serial 1 of the panel was found to be based on forged certificate during the life of the panel. A fraudulent appointment amounts to no appointment at all and, therefore, the panel being alive, the petitioner being at serial 2 of the panel was required to be considered in accordance with law. 2 Only whereafter Respondent no. 9 should have been considered for appointment, if the petitioner declined or was found ineligible. Alternatively, it is argued that if the life of the panel was expired on 31.12.2008, no appointment of Respondent no. 9 could have been made from an expired panel on 4.4.2009. Learned counsel for the State urges that the petitioner has alternative remedy before the District Programme Officer to agitate his grievance. This Court considers it proper to direct that if the petitioner files an application before the District Programme Officer within 30 days from today, he is liable to decide the issue on the aforesaid discussion after hearing Respondent no. 9 also within a maximum period of four months from the date of receipt and/or production of a copy of this order. Even while this Court is passing no order with regard to the order dated 4.4.2009 for reason of the absence of Respondent no. 9 before this Court, nothing precludes the petitioner from making an appropriate application for interim directions with regard to the order dated 4.4.2009 before the District Programme Officer, who is then required to decide the same by a reasoned and speaking order within a maximum period of two weeks from the date of presentation of this order. The writ application stands disposed. AKS/ (Navin Sinha, J.)