IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10193 of 2004 KUMARI BABITA @ BABITA DEVI, wife of Shri Binod Kumar, resident of village Mahkhar, P.S. Bakhtiarpur, P.O. Mahkhar, Via Simri Bakhtiarpur, District Saharsa … Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Director, Social Welfare Department, Bihar, Patna 3. The Deputy Director, Welfare Department, Koshi Division, Saharsa 4. The District Magistrate, Saharsa 5. The Deputy Development Commissioner, Saharsa 6. The Chief Development Project Officer (C.D.P.O.) Simri Bakhtiarpur, Saharsa 7. Shri Ram Charitra Mandal, Mukhia, Mahkhar Gram Panchayat, P.O. Mahkhar, Via Simri Bakhtiarpur, District Saharsa 8. Baby Kumari, wife of Shri Sudhir Kumar, resident of village Mahkhar, P.O. Mahkhar, via Simri Bakhtiarpur, District Saharsa … Respondents ----------- 5. 9.11.2009 Heard counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the State. In the opinion of this Court the prayer made by the petitioner in this writ application either in the main writ application “(i) for issuance of an appropriate writ for quashing of Memo No. 210, dated 3.7.2004, issued by the Child Development Project Officer (C.D.P.O.), Simri Bakhtiarpur, Saharsa, respondent no.6, whereby the respondent no.8 has been selected as „Anganbari Sevika‟ for Anganbari Centre (Mahkhar Got) under Mahkhar Gram Panchayat of Simri Bakhtiarpur Block, District 2 Saharsa, contained in Annexure 4. (ii) for issuance of an appropriate writ commanding the respondents to consider the petitioner for selection as Anganbari Sevika for Anganbari Centre, Mahkhar (got) under Mahkhar Gram Panchayat of Simri Bakhtiarpur Block, District Saharsa.” or in the interlocutory application, I.A.No. 4950/2006 (filed on 5th November, 2006) for the following substituted relief: (a) for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the proceeding of the Aam Sabha dated 4.6.2005, whereby the private respondent no.8 was recommended for appointment (Annexure 6) as well the order dated 6.6.2005 passed by the Child Development Project Officer, Simri Bakhtiarpur, Saharsa, respondent no.6 (Annexure 7) whereby the respondent no.8 has been appointed as Anganbari Sevika.” cannot be allowed in view of the stand taken by the respondents in their supplementary counter affidavit enclosing 3 the self declaration of the petitioner dated 4.6.2005 reading to the following effect: lsok esa] Jheku~ cky fodkl ifj;kstuk inkf/kdkjh flejh cf[r;kjiqj fo"k;%&vkaxuckM+h lsfodk ds iwoZ esa p;u ds laca/k esA egk'k;] fuosnu ds lkFk dguk gS fd vkaxuckM+h dsUnz ekg[k<+ xks<+ esa vkaxuckM+h lsfodk dk p;u iwoZ esa fd;k x;k Fkk ftlesa esjk p;u ugha gksus ds dkj.k iVuk esa ,d jhV ;kfpdk nk;j dh FkhaA eSa mldks okil ysuk pkgrh gwWA vr% Jheku~ ls fuosnu gS fd vkaxuckM+h dsUnz ekg[k<+ xks<+ Vksyk esa fdlh Hkh mi;qDr vkosfndk dk p;u bl in gsrw fd;k tk;A esjs lkeus gLrk{kj fd;k fo'oklHkktu g0@& g0@& jklfcgkjh ;kno cchrk nsch fnukad 4@6@05 ifr fouksn dqekj xkze$iksLV&ekg[k<+ Inasmuch as when on 4.6.2005 she had already informed the authorities of not only withdrawing her writ petition but also giving her consent in selection and appointment of any suitable candidate for the post of Anganwari Sevika in the concerned Mahakhar Gor Tola, she cannot be allowed to now assail the subsequent selection of respondent no.8, which was made pursuant to a fresh selection. This Court has found that the copy of such supplementary counter affidavit including copy of the aforementioned application filed by the petitioner on 4 4.6.2005 was served counsel for the petitioner 4.12.2006 and yet they have not been controverted by the petitioner till date. In that of the matter the stand taken by the respondents with regard to waiving and acquiescing her rights in view of her own application stands admitted. That apart this Court would otherwise find no merits in the case of the petitioner in assailing the selection and appointment of respondent no.8 inasmuch the appointment of respondent no. 8 was made after undergoing a fresh exercise after canceling her earlier appointment wherein this time the father-in-law of respondent no.8 did not participate in the meeting in question. For all the aforesaid reasons, this Court would not find any merit in this application and it is accordingly dismissed. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/