IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11567 of 2005 1. RINKU KUMARI, wife of Sri Anil Kumar 2. Hema Kumari, wife of Sri Indrajit Rai 3. Mamta Kumari, wife of Sri Dhukhan Singh 4. Rajbanshi Devi, wife of Sri Birendra Hazara 5. Ashama Devi, wife of Sri Subodh Kumar Rai 6. Phekani Devi, wife of Sri Uttam paswan 7. Neelam Kumari, wife of Sri Sanjay Kumar All residents of village Hasanpur Surat, P.O. & P.S. and Block Patori, Sub-division Patori, Dhamaun, District Samastipur … Petitioners Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Director, Directorate of Social Welfare, Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna 3. Commissioner, Darbhanga Division, Darbhanga 4. District Magistrate, Samastipur 5. Subdivisional Magistrate, Patori Dhamaun, P.O. & P.S. Patori, District Samastipur 6. District Welfare Officer, Samastipur 7. District Panchayat Raj Officer, Samastipur 8. Child Development Project Officer, Patori, Block and P.O. and P.S. Patori, District Samastipur 9. Block Development Officer, Patori, Samastipur 10. Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Raj, Hasanpur Surat, P.O. & P.S. Patori, District Samastipur 11. Panchayat Sachiv (Panchayat Sewak), Gram Panchayat Raj Hasanpur Surat, P.O. & P.S. Patori, District Samastipur … Respondents. ----------- 5. 13.11.2009 The prayer in this writ application of the seven petitioners reads as follows: “This writ application is for issuance of writ of mandamus directing the Commissioner, Darbhanga Division, Darbhanga (respondent no.3) for taking action or passing an appropriate order on the enquiry report (Annexure 8) sent to him by the District Raj Panchayat Officer, Samastipur 2 through his letter no. 495 dated 12.8.2004 and which report has been received by the office of Commissioner, Darbhanga Division, Darbhanga in relation to irregularities committed by Child Development Project Officer, Patori Block, Samastipur in the selection of Aaganbari Sewika/ Sahayaika of Block Patori, District Samastipur. It is stated that enquiry report has been prepared on the basis of order of Commissioner, Darbhanga and after enquiring with the Child Development Project Officer, Patori, Block Development Officer, Patori, Member Panchayat Samiti Shahpur Undi and Panchayat Sewak of Sahpur Undi all on 10.8.2004 and by that report enquiry officer has come to the finding that selections of Aaganbari Sewika/ Sahaiyaka are totally illegal as no law for such selection has been followed. It is stated that the petitioner be selected as Aaganbari Sewika/ Sahayaka respectively on fresh selection.” Counsel for the petitioners would submit that there was a mass bungling in selection and appointment on the post of Anganwari Sevika/ Sahaika as also 3 supplemented by the statement of Pramukh of the Panchayat Samiti. This Court while issuing notice to the private respondents no. 10 and 11 by an order dated 20.3.2007 had noted preliminary objection raised by the counsel for the State as with regard to maintainability of the writ application at the instance of seven petitioners. Today also Mr. Umakant Verma would not be in a position to justify filing of such a joint writ petition by assailing the selection and appointment of seven different posts of Anganwari sevika and Sahaika by one writ petition. That being so, this Court without going into the respective merits of the claim of the parties would only give liberty to the petitioners to file individual representation before the Collector of the District who shall then examine the same and if it is found by him that the appointment of the person concerned selected and appointed is vitiated being contrary to the scheme laid down in the circular of the State Government, he would pass necessary order. It is, however, made clear that any 4 adverse order to the interest of any working Anganwari sevika/ Sahaika will be passed only after issuing notice and hearing the concerned person whose appointment will be assailed by the respective petitioner in their individual representation. Counsel for the State in fact seems to be correct that even otherwise in absence of such persons whose appointment could be affected by the result of this writ application, this writ application was not maintainable. Be that as it may, as the petitioners have been only given liberty to file a representation, such question of maintainability of the writ application is left open. With the aforementioned observations and directions, this application stands disposed of. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/