IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1882 of 2005 1. Mala Devi @ Mala Kumari, wife of Birbahadur Pd.. 2. Meena Kumari Devi W/o Sri Ramesh Kumar Mahto. 3. Surya Banshi Devi W/o Sri Rameshwar Sharma. Petitioner no. 1 to 3 are resident of Village-Harpur, P.S.-Goreakothi, District- Siwan. 4. Smt. Manju Sharma wife of Sri Bipin Sharma, resident of village-Chandauli (Harpur), P.S.-Goreakothi, district-Siwan. 5. Babita Devi @ Babita Kumari wife of Sri Anil Pandit. Resident of Laka Tola,, Faridpur (Harpur) P.S.-Goreakothi, District-Siwan. 6. Sunaina Devi wife of Sri Jaleshwar Ram. Resident of Village-Laka Tola, Jamalpur, P.S.-Goreakothi, District-Siwan. .................. petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar through Secretary, Welfare Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Siwan. 3. The District Welfare Officer, Siwan. 4. The Child Development Project Officer, Anchal Goreakothi, District-Siwan. 5. Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Raj Harpur Anchal, P.S.- Goreakothi, District-Siwan. 6. Ramashray Rai, son of Late Sheoratan Roy. Mukhiya Gram Panchayat Raj Harpur Anchal, P.S.- Goreakothi, District-Siwan. 7. Gram Sabha, through the Mukhiya Gram Panchayat Raj Harpur, P.S.-Goreakothi, District-Siwan. 8. Geeta Devi, W/o Ashok Roy. 9. Renu Kumari, W/o Manoj Singh. Both No. 8 and 9 are resident of village Harpur, P.S.-Goreakothi, District-Siwan. 10. Malati Devi, W/o Bharat Roy, resident of village Chandauli, P.S.-Goreakothi, District-Siwan. 11. Suman Roy, W/o Manoj Roy, Resident of village- Lako Tola, Faridpur, P.S.-Goreakothi, District- Siwan. 12. Neeraj Devi wife of Rajeshwar Pandey. Resident of Village-Lako Tola, Jamalpur, P.S.-Goreakothi, District-Siwan. .................... Respondents. ----------- 5. 12.11.2009 Heard counsel for the petitioners and the counsel for the State. 2 The prayer of the petitioners in this writ application reads as follows: “In this application the petitioners pray for issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing the appointments of respondents 8 to 12 on the post of Sevika in Harpur Gram Panchayat P.S. Goreakothi, District Siwan.” Counsel for the petitioners with reference to the aforementioned relief would submit that the concerned selection and appointment of respondents no. 8 to 12 on the post of Anganwari Sevika in Harpur Gram Panchayat was made in violation of the provisions made under the Government circulars, inasmuch as better qualified persons were left out and those who were not even eligible, being not amongst the majority of beneficiaries, were selected and appointed. He would also submit that the petitioners had filed a comprehensive representation to the Collector of the District, as contained in Annexures 8 series, dated 22.12.2004 and 12.1.2005, but in absence of any response thereon, the petitioners were constrained to file this writ application on 8.2.2005. 3 In the opinion of this Court the petitioners had rather taken a hurried action in moving this Court, inasmuch as their representation could have been considered, had they not made the matter subjudice before this Court soon after filing of their aforesaid representations. The petitioners in fact have created their own impediment, inasmuch as after the writ application was filed the respondents including the Collector/ District Magistrate had to take action by filing a counter affidavit. From the counter affidavit also it would appear that the respondents had followed the prescribed procedure and upon evaluation of comparative merit as also screening of the relevant qualifications, the decision had been taken for appointment of the private respondents. It has further been stated that petitioner no.5 Babita Devi is already doing the job of Siksha Mitra since 2005 and therefore she was not entitled for her selection and appointment on the post of Anganbari Sewika. 4 The petitioners have also filed a reply to the counter affidavit wherein it is said that respondent no.8 is the daughter- in-law of Ramashray Rai, who was the Mukhiya of Gram Panchayat Raj Harpur and still, he had participated in process of selection of his own daughter-in-law. The fact, however, that petitioner no.5 was already appointed as a Siksha Mitra has not been denied in the reply of the petitioners to file counter affidavit. Therefore, it would appear that there is a serious contest on facts by both the sides. Moreover when the appointment of as many as five Gram Anganwari Sevikas is under joint challenge by the petitioners in this writ application the joint representation filed by the petitioners, in the opinion of this Court, could not be of any avail as each of the centre and each of selection will have its own individual fact. This Court therefore at best can give liberty to the petitioners to file their individual representation highlighting their individual grievance as with regard to selection of private respondents no. 8 to 12 in their individual capacity. If the 5 petitioners file their individual representation, the same will be looked into and a reasoned order will be passed by the Collector of the District after examining the individual grievance of the petitioners. It goes without saying that if the Collector of the District finds any merit in the contention raised by the individual petitioners in their representation he will of course give opportunity of personal hearing to the private respondents being affected by such decision of the Collector as also the concerned Gram Panchayat before taking a final decision and passing the consequential orders. Such exercise however must be completed within a period of six months from the date of filing of the individual representation by the petitioners. With the aforementioned observations and directions, this application is disposed of. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/