IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8031 of 2007 Janki Kumari, Wife of Shri Subodh Yadav, Resident of Village Phulaut East, Ward No. 10, P.S. Chousa, District Madhipura. ------ Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The District Magistrate, Madhipura. 3. The District Welfare Officer, Madhipura. 4. The Child Development Project Officer, Chousa, District Madhipura. 5. The Block Development Officer, Chousa, Madhipura. 6. The Mukhiya namely Bibha Devi, Wife of Neeraj Yadav, Grampanchayt Phulaut East, P.S. Chousa, District Madhipura. 7. The Panchayat Sevak-cum-Secretary of Gram Panchayat Phulaut East, P.S. Chousa, District Madhipura. 8. Nibha Kumari Rao, Wife of Shri Arun Kumar Yadav, a resident of Village Barikhal Tola Phulaut East, P.S. Chousa, District Madhipura. -------- Respondents ----------- 2 26.11.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ application reads as follows:- “1. That this writ petition is being filed for issuance of an appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, direction/ directions against the respondents/ authorities directing them to consider the genuine and legal relief of the petitioner in view of the scheme for selection of Anganbari Sevika under the specific rules framed and necessary guidelines have been provided and same has been communicated to all district authorities to act within the rules framed for the selection Anganwari Sevika and the petitioner 2 is entitled for selection under the following facts and circumstances of this case.” With reference to the aforementioned relief, learned counsel for the petitioner invites attention of this Court towards paragraph no.13 of the writ application, which reads as follows:- “13. That soon after the selection arbitrary, the petitioner has represented before the authorities concerned but the same is pending before the Respondents/authorities i.e. D.M. Madhipura, S.d.O. Madhipura, B.D.O., Chousa, C.O. Chousa and they are not taking any action against the erring Mukhiya, C.D.P.O. and Panchayat Secretary.” Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner’s representation till date has not been disposed of by the Collector of the district. Counsel for the State, who has not filed any counter affidavit even in a space of almost two and a half years, would only take a plea that there being no representation on record and the statement in paragraph no.13 being wholly vague not even disclosing the date of filing of such representation, the same would not inspire confidence. 3 In such circumstances, if the petitioner adduces proof of presenting/filing of representation on any date prior to filing of this writ application i.e. 30.5.2007, the Collector of the district would examine the same and pass an appropriate order after affording an opportunity of hearing to the concerned representative of the Gram Panchayat as also the respondent no.8. On the other hand, if there be no such written proof of presenting/filing of such representation by the petitioner, the matter will stand closed and no further action will be required to be taken by the Collector of the district. With the aforementioned observations, this application is disposed of. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)