1 S/4 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1881/2006 [SMT. UCHHAB DEVI VS. STATE] Dated : 27.02.2008 HON'BLE MR. MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI, J. Mr. Hemant Choudhary for the petitioner. Mr. G.R. Punia for the respondent. Mr.S. Ladrecha, Dy.G.A. ***** The petitioner has filed this writ petition to challenge the order Annex. P-7 dated 26.12.2005 as pursuant to which petitioner was discontinued as Anganwari Worker and was placed as assistant. According to the petitioner, the respondents fail to undertake their actions for removal of the petitioner from the post of Anganwari Worker as per the instructions/circular issued by the Government. There are many grounds which are raised in the writ petition to challenge the impugned order. Before averting to the grounds raised in the writ petition it is necessary to look into the circular dated 15.09.2003 which has been placed along with reply as Annex.R 5/4 wherein Para 13 provides not only mode of removal but if any person is aggrieved by such order of removal then to prefer a representation to Child Development Project Officer within a period of 15 days and even if person is aggrieved further, a representation can be given to the Chief Executive Officer of Zila Praishad. In view of the aforesaid clause, the petitioner was under obligation to first make a representation to the authorities concerned before filing of this writ petition 2 and precisely this objection has been taken in reply for maintainability of the writ petition. In view of the above, so far as the present writ petition is concerned, it is not maintainable as petitioner has failed to approach the authorities concerned as per Para 13 of the Circular dated 15.09.2003. however, looking to the fact that under some bonafide advise petitioner was pursuing her remedies before this Court, the remedy otherwise available to the petitioner can be closed even due to lapse of 15 days period after passing of the impugned order Annex.7. Accordingly, petitioner is now directed to make a representation to the Child Development Project Officer within a period of 15 days from today and in case any such representation is made, the aforesaid authority is directed to consider the same by passing a speaking order by considering all the relevant aspect concerned to the matter. It is further agreed by the learned counsel for the State that even if petitioner remain aggrieved by the order of Child Development Project Officer then she would further be allowed to make a representation to the Chief Executive Officer of Zila Prishad within a period of 15 days after the decision of the Child Development Project Officer. In view of the aforesaid agreement, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to Child Development Project Officer to decide the representation, if so made, within shortest possible time. (MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI), J. mamta