IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5820 of 2010 Nagma Firoza, wife of Md. Khalid Hussain, Resident of village Bharaili, P.S. Jalalgarh, P.O. Gaira, District Purnea……………Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. The Commissioner, Purnea Division, Purnea. 3. The Collector, District Purnea. 4. The Block Development Officer, Jalalgarh, District Purnea. 5. The Child Development Project Officer, (C.D.P.O.), Block Jalalgrah, District Purnea. 6. Shabnam Khatoon, the Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Raj Dimia under Block Jalalgrah, District Purnea. 7. Mehwari Sultana, wife of Md. Ashfaque Alam, Resident of village Bharaili Paschim Tola, P.S. Jalalgrah, P.O. Gaira, District Purnea………………………………………………………………………Respondents ----------- 3 15.04.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State as well as learned counsel for respondent no.7 who has filed power in this case on 24.01.2011. From the impugned order of the Collector, as contained in Annexure-2 and the impugned order of the Commissioner as contained in Annexure-1, it appears that they have accepted the stand of the respondent, in view of a certificate of the Mukhiya, that she was applicant earlier also for selection of Anganwari Sevika in respect of Anganwari Centre No.10. Hence, they have held that she was 2 wrongly left out. In the circumstances, they have directed that on the basis of earlier merit list, steps should be taken for appointment of Anganwari Sevika. From the two orders it appears that earlier selection of Anganwari Sevika and Sahayika for a number of Centres including Centre No.10 was cancelled and direction was issued for selection on the basis of the earlier merit list itself. In accordance with the said direction, a meeting of Aam Sabha was held for the centre on 26.12.2007. In the proceeding book of the Aam Sabha of that date, it is recorded that respondent no.7 was not an applicant earlier, hence her case was not considered by the Aam Sabha and petitioner was appointed. Respondent no.7 filed her complaint which was enquired into by the Collector. A show cause was filed by the Mukhiya and other officials and the Mukhiya in his show cause certified that petitioner was an applicant earlier also for Centre No.10. On the basis of said certificate, the Collector held that recording of the proceeding of Aam Sabha, 3 that the respondent had not applied earlier, was wrong. Hence, selection of the petitioner was cancelled and it was directed that on the basis of the earlier merit list, selection should be made. The same view was endorsed by the Commissioner also in his order. Though the respondent no.7 has appeared in this case in January itself but she has not chosen to file any counter affidavit. From the two orders it appears that none of the authorities have cared to call for the original merit list prepared for the Centre. They have gone on the show cause of Mukhiya and certificate given by her that the respondent was also applicant earlier. When the selection of the Centre was cancelled earlier and it was directed that fresh selection shall be made on the basis of earlier merit list, the respondent-Collector, in the light of the claim of respondent no.7, ought to have called for the earlier merit list in original to ascertain as to whether the name of the respondent as a fact was 4 included in the merit list or not. In case her name was not included in the merit list, she could have no case for consideration of her name later on. This exercise has not been done by the Collector as well as by the Commissioner and only basis of the stand of the Muhiya, they have disbelieved the minutes of proceeding of Aam Sabha. In the circumstances, the orders of the Commissioner and the Collector as contained in Annexures 1 and 2 are therefore, quashed. The matter is remitted back to the Collector, Purnea who is directed to call for the original merit list itself prepared for the Centre earlier and verify the factual position as to whether name of the respondent was included in the merit list or not. If the same was not there, case of the respondent cannot be considered for selection on the basis of the direction as contained in letter no.3321(C) dated 02.08.2007, directing for fresh selection of Anganwari Sevika and Sahayika on the basis of the existing merit list. The Collector shall 5 make all endeavours to take a final decision in the matter preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The writ application is disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. BT (J. N. Singh, J.)