IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.19114 of 2008 Awantika Devi, W/O Shri Jang Bahadur Singh, resident of village Mohanpur, P.S. Kudra, District- Kaimur (Bhabhua) ……….. Petitioner Versus 1.The State Of Bihar 2.The Secretary-cum-Commissioner, Welfare Department, Bihar, Patna 3.The District Magistrate, Kaimur at Bhabhua 4.The Deputy Development Commissioner, Kaimur at Bhabhua 5.The Child Development Project Officer (C.D.P.O.), Kudra, Kaimur (Bhabhua) 6.The Prakhand Pramukh, Kudra, Kaimur at Bhabhua 7.The Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Mohanpur, P.S. Kudra, District- Kaimur at Bhabhua 8.The Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Mohanpur, P.S. Kudra, District- Kaimur ……….. Respondents ----------- 2. 25/03/2011 From Annexure-6 it appears that, on remand from this Court, the matter of Anganbari Sevika was considered by the Collector, and he found that the selection of Anganbari Sevika and Sahaika were cancelled only on the basis of a report of the Deputy Development Commissioner that they were having differences with each other. The Collector found that the same could not be a ground for her disengagement and therefore he directed the Sevika to be reinstated, and it is stated that she has been reinstated. This order of the Collector is dated 19.9.2008. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the Sahaika 2 with which the said Sevika was having the differences. He submits that if the said Sevika can be reinstated finding the ground of differences as non est, surely, the petitioner, who is Sahaika can also be reinstated. Submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner are correct. If common ground for disengagement of both Sevika and Sahaika has been found non est in one case, the same has to be declared as non est in the second case also. The writ application was filed on 23.12.2008 with service of two copies of the same in the office of the learned Advocate General. However, no counter affidavit has been filed in the case till now. In the circumstances, this writ application is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner also as Sahaika of the concerned Centre forthwith. However, this order is being passed on the statement of learned counsel for the petitioner that no other Sahaika has been engaged at the Centre till now. Hence, if engagement of any Sahaika at 3 the Centre has already been made, directions issued herein by this Court need not be carried out and the order need not be considered as an order in favour of the petitioner. Pradeep/ ( J. N. Singh,J.)