IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12491 of 2007 SARITA KUMARI, wife of Kamleshwar Ram, and D/o Jugeshwar Das of village Jankipur, P.S. Bhagwanpur, District Vaishali … Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Director, I.C.D.S. Directorate, Social and Welfare Department, Indira Bhavan, Second Floor, Ram Charitra Singh Road, Patna 3. The Collector, Vaishali 4. The Sub-divisional Officer, Vaishali, at Hajipur 5. The Child Development Project (C.D.P.O.), Lalganj, Vaishali 6. The Block Education Extension Officer, Bhagwanpur 7. Bindu Kumari, wife of Laxami Kant Ram of village Jankipur, P.S. Bhagwanpur, District Vaishali 8. The Secretary, Gram Panchayat Sah Mian Rohua, P.S. Bhagwanpur, District Vaishali … Respondents. ----------- 2. 17.12.2009 No one appears for the petitioner. Counsel for the State is present. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ application reads as follows: “Instant petition is being filed for issuance of appropriate writ, writs, order/orders, direction/s commanding and directing the respondents to appoint petitioner on the post of Sevika at Jankipur within the territorial jurisdiction of Gram Panchayat Raj Sahmian Rohua in a circumstances when petitioner has secured 59.71% marks where as respondent Bindu Kumari has got lesser i.e. 56.88% marks than petitioner but the respondents have 2 appointed her (Bindu Kumari respondent no.7) in utter discrimination of mandatory Article 14 read with 39 of the Constitution of India.” From the perusal of Annexure 4 it appears that the petitioner’s representation for the aforementioned relief was initially filed before the prescribed authority, namely, the Collector of Vaishali District on 20.3.2007 but when no order thereof was passed by the said authority for almost six months, the present writ application came to be filed. In the opinion of this Court the whole concept of internal remedy gets nullified if the prescribed authority as per the Government decision does not act and pass his final orders. Be that as it may, now the State Government in its recent circular dated 10.12.2009 has also fixed the time limit both for disposal of the representation by the Collector and/or appeal by the Commissioner, this Court would give liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh 3 representation which would be disposed of by a speaking order within the time frame now fixed by the State Government in its latest circular dated 10.12.2009. With the aforementioned observation and direction, this application is disposed of. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/