IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12862 of 2007 LALITA KUMARI wife of Maheshwar Mehta resident of village Gidarmari, P.S. Birpur, District Supaul. Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR through its Chief Secretary, Bihar, Patna. 2.The Secretary Social Welfare Department (Samaj Kalyan Vivag) Bihar, Patna. 3.The Director, Social Welfare Department (Samaj Kalayan Vivag), Bihar, Patna. 4.The District Magistrate, Supaul. 5.The Child Development Project Officer, Basantpur, District Supaul. 6.Panchayat, Banailipatti, Block Basantpur, District Supaul. 7.The Panchayat Sewak, Gram Panchayat, Banailipatti, Block Basantpur, District Supaul. 8.Anita Devi wife of Arun Kumar Mehta resident of village Gidarmari, P.O. Banailipatti, P.S. Birpur, District Supaul. ----------- 2 17/12/2009 No one appears for the petitioner. Counsel for the State is present. Prayer of the petitioner in this writ application reads as follows:- “I.For issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus or appropriate writ/direction be issued to respondents commanding them to select the petitioner as „Anganwari Sevika‟ at Gidarwari Centre of Banailipatti, Grampanchayat in Supaul District. II.For issuance of a appropriate writ/direction be issued to respondents for cancellation of selection of Respondent no.8 as „Anganwari Sevika‟ at Gidarmari Centre of Banailipatti, Gram panchayat in Supaul District as Directed in Kandi Ka (8) of the Guideline of the Social Welfare Department, Bihar Government dt.3.10.06 (Annexure-3).” 2 From perusal of the writ application specially its Annexure 4, a copy of the representation addressed to the Collector, Supaul, it appears that the petitioner had filed a representation on 28.5.2007 and when no decision had been taken in the matter in the next four months she had filed this writ application on 27.9.2007. As usual, there is no counter affidavit of the Respondents and the counsel for the State therefore is also not in a position to say any thing about the fate of such representation. Counsel for the State, however, would still raise an oral objection that there is nothing to show that the said representation was ever filed by the petitioner before the Collector of the district. Such submissions however cannot be entertained by this Court inasmuch as the pleadings made in the writ application on affidavit had to be controverted before raising the aforesaid plea. That being so, such oral plea of counsel for the State is hereby rejected. This Court therefore will have to proceed on the assumption that the representation filed by the petitioner has remained pending before the Collector of the district. However, in order to avoid any controversy on this petty issue, this Court would give liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh representation and in the event such a representation is filed by the petitioner, the same will be 3 disposed of by a speaking order by the Collector of the district within the prescribed time limit fixed by the circular of the State Government dated 10.12.2009. With the aforementioned observation/direction this application is disposed of. Abhay Kumar (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)