IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10777 of 2007 ANITA KUMARI daughter of Ramoutar Chaudhary, and wife of Yugal Chaudhary, resident of village- Gosspur, P. O. and P. S. Gurus, District Gaya. … Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Commissioner, Magadh Division, Gaya. 3. The District Magistrate, Gaya. 4. The Deputy Development Commissioner, Gaya. 5. The District Programme Officer, Gaya 6. The Child Development Project Officer, Gurus, Gaya. 7. Smt. Kalpana Devi Mukhia, Chillor. Gram Panchayat, resident of village Gosspur, P.O and P. S. Gurua, District Gaya. 8. Smt. Shaheen Ruby, wife of Md. Isril, resident of village- Gosspur, P. O. and P. S. Gurua, District Gaya. … Respondents ----------- 3. 03.12.2009. Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ application reads as follows:- “1. That this application is for calling upon the respondents to produce the order in this Hon’ble Court by which the respondent No. 8 has been appointed as Anganbari Sevika in Gosspur Village within Chillor Grampanchayat, P.S. Goh, District- Gaya. The said order has been passed on 5.06.2007 and this application is further for quashing the said order dated 5.06.2007, where by the petitioner may be appointed as Anganbari Sevika for Gasspur Village.” With reference to the aforementioned 2 prayer, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that now when the counter affidavit has been filed and the appointment letter of respondent no. 8 has been produced, this court must quash the appointment of respondent no. 8 only on the ground that husband of respondent no. 8 was an employee and thus respondent no. 8 was ineligible for being considered for selection/appointment on the post of Anganwari Sevika in terms of circular of the State Government. Counsel for the petitioner in this regard has referred to application of respondent no. 8 submitted to CDPO on 2. 7. 2009 which reads as follows:- “ lsok esa] cky fodkl ifj;kstuk inkf/kdkjh] egksn;] Jherh vuhrk dqekjh gkbZ dksV esa tks fjV ;kfpdk nk;j dh gSA mlesa loky mBkbZ gSA esjs ifr eks0 bljkbZy valkjh cEcbZ esa dke djrs gSA vkSj cgqr :i;k dekrs gSA ;g ckr xyr gSA esjs ifr dydrk esa ,d peM+k ds dEiuh esa dke djrs Fks og dke vc NqV x;k gSA b/kj ,d lky ls csjkstxkj gSA ?kj ij gh jg gjs gSA ;g ckr eqf[k;k th Hkh tkurs gSA okMZ lnL; fo'oklh Hktu uke& 'kkghu :ch vkWxu ckM+h lsfodk dsUnz xsliqj dksM la0&120 iapk;r fpyksj On the basis of said averment counsel for the petitioner would submit that now it 3 is absolutely clear that the plea of the petitioner as with regard to husband of respondent no. 8 being employee has been established and therefore there should be no difficulty in quashing the appointment of respondent no. 8. In the opinion of this court, the impression of counsel for the petitioner seems to be far from correct. When the petitioner had filed this writ application her statement in this regard was as follows:- “10. That it will be relevant to mention here that the husband of the respondent no. 8 is a service holder at Bombay where he is earning more than lac in a year and as such the respondent no. 8 will not come under the Category of beneficiary i.e. below poverty level.” Such statement has been controverted by respondents in paragraph 9 of the counter affidavit which reads as follows:- ” 9. That submission made in this para-10 is not supported by documentary or any authentic proof. Child development project officer, Gurua block reported that husband of respondent no. 8 is not in any job in Bombay but he is jobless and lives in the village Gospur.” 4 In any event, this court would find that now the petitioner wants to edge out the respondent no. 8 from the post of Anganwari Sevika on the ground that when her selection/appointment was made on 30.6.2007 her husband was definitely employee if not at Bombay and earning Rs.1,00,000/- per month as stated in paragraph 9 of the counter affidavit at least in Kolkata in a leather company. In the opinion of this court, such aspects involving pure questions of facts in the first instance has to be looked into by the Collector of the District as per the Circular issued by the State Government on the subject. In fact, the petitioner had not moved first before the Collector of the District and consequently this writ application must be held to be premature. Having recorded so, this court would however give liberty to the petitioner to raise these questions before the Collector of the District who after holding necessary enquiry from any source would take his final decision and pass a reasoned order but only after affording opportunity of hearing to the 5 petitioner, respondent no. 8 as also representation of the gram Panchayat. It is made clear that this court has not expressed any merit on the claim of the petitioner vis-à-vis respondent no.8 and consequently it will be open to the Collector of the District to pass his independent order of course after taking into account the guidelines issued by the State Government on the subject relating to selection/appointment on the post of Anganwari Sevika. With the aforementioned observations and directions, this writ application is disposed of. kanchan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)