IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11892 of 2004 MANJU DEVI, Wife of Madan Chaudhary, Resident of Village-Salempur Tiru, P.O. and P.S.-Teghra, District-Begusarai. ………………………. Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Commissioner and Secretary, Human Resources Department, Bihar, Patna. 2. The Director, Primary Education, Human Resources Department, Bihar, Patna. 3. District Magistrate, Ex-Officio-Chairman of the District Establishment Committee, Begusarai. 4. the District Welfare Officer, Begusarai. 5. The C.D.P.O., Teghra, Begusarai. 6. Savitri Devi, wife of Shri Shankar Sah, Resident of Village-Salempur Tiru, P.O. and P.S.-Teghra, District-Begusarai. ……………………… Respondents ----------- 3 9/11/2009 Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. Earlier this application was dismissed on default on 21.9.2005 which however was subsequently restored by order dated 30.3.2006 in M.J.C. No.2673 of 2005. Prayer of the petitioner in this writ application reads as follows:- “For issuance of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction for commanding the respondent to give appointment of the petitioner on the post of Anganbari Sevika for which she has been selected by the selection committee (Aam Sabha).” In the opinion of this Court the aforementioned grievance of the petitioner could have been looked into in a more effective manner by Collector of the district especially when the petitioner became aware that the selection of private respondent no.6 was made only because she had filed a representation before the 2 Collector. That being so, this Court would permit the petitioner to withdraw this application to enable her to file a representation before the Collector of the district, who after issuing notice to respondent no.6 and hearing them may pass an appropriate order without being influenced by the order of this Court as this Court has not considered merits of the claim of either of the petitioner or respondent no.6 and has left the matter untouched due to expiry of a period of five years of selection of respondent no.6. It, however, goes without saying that if selection of respondent no.6 was made in violation of the government circular, the Collector after hearing respondent no.6 will pass an appropriate order in accordance with law. With the aforementioned observation/direction this application is finally disposed of. Abhay Kumar (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)