IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5535 of 2007 AASHA KUMARI, wife of Anil Kumar Poddaqr, resident of village Sumbha Gajighat, (Ward No.10), P.O.+P.S. Alauli, District Khagaria. Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR 2.The Commissioner and Secretary, Department of Social Welfare, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3.The Director, I.C.D.S. Department of social Welfare, Government of Bihar, Patna. 4The District Magistrate, Khagaria. 5.The District Welfare Officer, Khagria. 6.TheChild Development Project Officer, Alauli, District Khagaria. 7.Mukhiya, Gram panchayat Raj Sumbha, Alauli, District Khagaia. 8.Sunita Devi, wife of Ramchandra Mahto, resident of village Sumbha, Gajighat, mushari Tola, (Ward no.11), P.O. +P.S.Alauli, District Khagaria. ----------- 2 24/11/2009 Heard counsel for the petitioner, counsel for the State as also counsel for the private respondent no.8. Prayer of the petitioner in this writ application reads as follows:- “That this is an application for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing and commanding the respondents to produce the appointment/selection order of private respondent no.8, on the post of Anganbari Sevika of Anganbari Centre No.172, Ward No.10, and after production of the same for quashing of the said appointment/selection by issuing a writ in the nature of Certiorari and for issuance of a consequential writ in the nature of mandamus directing and commanding the respondents to select/appoint the petitioner on the post of Anganbari Sevika of Aaganbaari Centre No.172, Ward No.10, and/or for issuance of a writ/order/direction for which the petitioner may be found legally entitled to under the facts and circumstances stated hereinunder.” Counsel for the petitioner with reference to the aforementioned prayer would submit that the petitioner by 2 representation dated 5.4.2007 had drawn attention of the Collector of the district towards illegality in the selection and appointment of respondent no.8 but no orders thereon has been passed in the next three weeks as a result whereof this writ application was filed on 27.4.2007. Counsel for the State and the counsel for private respondent no.8 have filed no counter affidavit and have only orally sought to support the selection and appointment of respondent no.8. In the opinion of this Court, the pure question of facts raised in the representation should have been decided by the Collector of the district which is the prescribed authority under the circular of the State Government. However, taking into account that the writ application came to be filed immediately on filing of such representation, the inaction on the part of the Collector cannot be held to be deliberate, inasmuch as, since the matter became subjudice he may have restrained himself from passing any order. This Court, therefore, would direct the Collector of the district to dispose of the representation as contained in Annexure 12 to this application within a period of six months from the date of receipt /production of a copy of this order after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, respondent no.8 as also representative of the Gram Panchayat. The application stands disposed of. Abhay Kumar (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)