IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6204 of 2008 NILIMA KUMARI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 2/ 7/8/2008. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner was an applicant and was considered for appointment on the post of Angaan Bari Sevika at Gram Panchayat- Neema Anjan, Centre-Ratanpur Bigha, Block-Madanpur in the District of Aurangabad. In pursuance of such consideration along with others a merit list was drawn up. The petitioner, who belongs to the general category, was placed at serial No.1 of the merit list. The appointment, however, came to be granted to a person who was second in the merit list, and was the daughter-in-law of the Mukhiya concerned. Respondent No.3, the District Magistrate, then cancelled the appointment made by the Mukhiya by order dated 31.7.2007 and directed to complete the process of appointment by 6.8.2007. All that was then required was to proceed in accordance with the merit position in the panel in view of the illegal nature of the appointment made of the person lower in the panel ignoring the petitioner at a higher position. On record is the report of the S.D.O. dated 15.7.2007 at annexure-2 that the village in question for which the petitioner had been selected was dominated by the persons of the general category and, therefore, in terms of the policy guidelines the petitioner was competent to be appointed. When nothing further has transpired, the petitioner has - 2 - been compelled to approach this Court for enforcement of the panel as she apprehends that by sheer inaction on behalf of the respondents the life of the merit panel would lapse with the effect that she would become overage by passage of time for appointment. Learned counsel for the State sought time to file a counter affidavit, but did not dispute the legal position that if the petitioner was at serial No.1 of the merit panel and illegally the person at serial NO.2 has been appointed which has subsequently been removed because of the illegality, all that was required was to proceed afresh in accordance with the merit panel. The merit panel has been prepared in 2007. The illegal appointment has been cancelled on 31.7.2007. The report of the S.D.O., as noticed above, is dated 15.7.2007. One year later the respondents are yet to act thereupon. On facts, no legal issues are involved for adjudication. The matter is one purely of administration on facts. On the basis of the pleadings on record, learned counsel for the State found it difficult to contend to the contrary. The writ application is disposed with directions to respondent No.3 to proceed to make appointment in accordance with the merit position of the panel prepared in April, 2007 for appointment on the post of Angan Bari Sevikas in the Gram panchayat-Neema Anjan. Let it be done within a maximum period of four weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. This Court further requires the District Magistrate, - 3 - respondent No.3, to file an affidavit of explaining the reasons for not having taken consequential administrative action in pursuance of the enquiry report dated 15.7.2007 which found reflection in his administrative action dated 31.7.2007 when no further progress was made compelling the petitioner to approach this Court. Let such affidavit be filed within six weeks when the matter shall be listed for perusal under the heading “Orders”. KC ( Navin Sinha,J )