IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6913 of 2007 SUNITA DEVI, wife of Shri Binod Kumar Mandal, resident of Village- Madhuvan, P.S. and District-Madhepura… Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Commissioner and Secretary, Department of Social Welfare, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Director Social Welfare, I.C.D.S. Directorate, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 4. The District Magistrate, Madhepura. 5. The District Welfare Officer, Madhepura, P. S. and District- Madhepura. 6. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Madhepura, P. S. and District- Madhepura. 7. The Child Development Project Officer, Madhepura P. S. and District- Madhepura. 8. The Mukhiya Gram Panchayat Raj Madhuvan, P. S. and District- Madhepura. 9. The Panchayat/Secretary, Gram Panchayat Raj Madhuvan, P.S. and District- Madhepura. 10. Onima Kumari, wife of Shri Subhash Chandra Deo, resident of village Madhuvan, P.S. and District- Madhepura. … Respondents ----------- 02. 05.01.2010 In this writ application, the petitioner has prayed following reliefs:- A) A certiorari setting aside the order dt. 8.1.2007 containing memo no. 15 passed by respondent no. 4/District Magistrate, Madhepura whereby and whereunder selection and nomination paper of the petitioner on the post of Anganwari Sevika for Madhuvan Goth, Ward No. 4 Anganwari Centre in question has been cancelled about two years of her appointment on the said post. B) A mandamus directing the respondents concerned particularly respondent no. 7 and 8 to reinstate the petitioner on the post of Anganwari Sevika for Anganwari Centre at Madhuvan Goth, Ward No. 4, 2 under Gram Panchayat Raj Madhuvan (hereinafter referred to as Anganwari Centre in question in short) in the District of Madhepura has been selected and appointed earlier on the said post by the competent authority after finding her suitable.” The impugned order passed on a complaint filed by respondent no. 10 pertaining to anomaly in selection/ appointment on the post of Anganwari Sevika and the Collector has held that the appointment of petitioner was unsustainable. Admittedly, the petitioner was given a notice and/or opportunity of hearing and such order has been passed after complying the principles of natural justice. In the guidelines issued by the State Government there is forum of appeal against the order passed by the Collector of District but the petitioner without exhausting such alternative remedy has directly rushed to this Court. Consequently, this writ petition must be held to be not maintainable and is accordingly dismissed. The dismissal of this writ application will not come in the way of petitioner in filing the appeal. In case, the 3 petitioner would file an appeal, the same would be disposed of on merit taking into account that this writ petition has remained pending for a period more than two and a half years. Such appeal must be filed by the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order failing which the issue of limitation even in filing of appeal shall become germane consideration by the appellate authority. Subject to aforementioned observations, this writ application is dismissed. kanchan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)