IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.17947 of 2009 MAYA KUMARI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 02 10/03/2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. On the own showing of the petitioner she was at serial no.2 of the merit panel dated 12.12.2008 for appointment on the post of Anganbari Sewika, and one Sunita Kumari was at serial no.1. The person at serial no.5 Kavita Kumari came to be appointed. The petitioner questioned the same when the District Magistrate vide his order dated 30.7.2009 by a reasoned order held that the petitioner had wrongly been denied appointment, and simultaneously set aside the appointment of candidate at serial no.5 Kavita Kumari but proceed to direct fresh selection. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner having moved during the life of the panel and a positive finding arrived that she was wrongly denied appointment, there was no justification to direct fresh selection. Learned counsel for the State urged that in any event of the matter, petitioner was at serial no.2 of the merit panel. The person at serial no.1 has a 2 preferential right to be considered even over the petitioner. At this stage, counsel for the petitioner contends that the person at serial no.1 has been found ineligible. Learned counsel for the State next contended that any consideration of the petitioner could be subject to any orders in appeal/writ that may have been passed on a possible challenge made to the same by Kavita Kumari. Both the objections of the State are unexceptional and the Court has to uphold the same. If the person at serial no.1 of the merit panel has been found ineligible and Kavita Kumari has not questioned her termination, only in that event is the District Magistrate required to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment without fresh selection, considering his own finding that the petitioner had been wronged and that the issue had been raised by her during the life of the panel itself. Let such consideration be done and a reasoned and speaking order pass in accordance with law within a maximum period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The application stands disposed. P.K. ( Navin Sinha, J.)