IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13904 of 2009 1. CHANDRIKA DEVI W/O GANESH SAH VILL.- DHANGER, P.O.- MADANPUR, P.S.- PARSAWNI, BLOCK- PARSAWNI, DISTT.- SITAMARHI Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR, THROUGH HUMAN RESOURCE DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT, PATNA 2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE SITAMARHI, DISTT.- SITAMARHI 3. THE DISTRICT WELFARE OFFICER SITAMARHI, DISTT.- SITAMARHI 4. THE DISTRICT PROGRAM OFFICER SITAMARHI, DISTT.- SITAMARHI 5. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER PARSAWNI, DISTT.- SITAMARHI 6. THE C.D.P.O. PARSAWNI BLOCK, DISTT.- SITAMARHI ----------- 2/ 04/11/2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner was an applicant for the post of Angan Bari Sevika. The order of the District Magistrate dated 22.9.2009 specifically notices that she was fully eligible for appointment as an extremely backward class candidate and was at Serial No.1 of the merit position. The Mukhiya acted illegally in not convening the necessary meeting for securing appointment. That it was done mala fide by the Mukhiya to deprive the petitioner of the benefit of her eligibility The order itself concludes that in the meantime the Rules for appointment had changed and the earlier panel was no more valid. Fresh advertisement has been issued inviting applications for the post of Angan Bari Sevika in which the last date for submission of applications is 20.10.2009. The petitioner has filed this writ application on 16.10.2009. It is further apparent that she moved well in time when she 2 came to this Court earlier in C.W.J.C. No.8136/09 which also notices that she had moved before the District Magistrate, Sitamarhi as early as on 16.6.2007. Mere empanelment at Serial No.1 per se may not create a right in the petitioner to claim appoint, but when the finding is that the action was mala fide engineered to defeat her claim and that she was fully eligible to be otherwise appointed, the issue would be otherwise. In that circumstance to oust the petitioner on basis of an inchoate claim of empanelment shall not be doing justice to her. It would amount to giving a final advantage to the Mukhiya and others concerned and to defeat the legitimate right of the petitioner. This Court, in view of the specific finding on facts of the District Magistrate in his order dated 29.9.2009, holds that there shall be no justification for the respondents to proceed with any fresh selection in light of the earlier eligibility of the petitioner wrongly denied to her. The writ application is allowed, but subject to the fulfillment of other conditions of appointment by the petitioner in accordance with law. Let such consideration of the candidature of the petitioner under her original empanelment of 2007 be done in accordance with law within a maximum 3 period of four weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order before the respondent concerned. Till such time the advertisement in question shall remain stayed, the validity of which shall depend on the final order to be passed by the concerned respondent in light of the aforesaid discussion. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)