IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2167 of 2010 1. SARITA DEVI W/O NAGENDRA RAM R/O VILL. AND P.O. RAJANDIH, P.S.- RAJPUR (NASRIGANJ), DISTT.- ROHTAS AT SASARAM Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE, GOVT. OF BIHAR 3. THE DIRECTOR SOCIAL WELFARE, BIHAR, PATNA 4. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE ROHTAS AT SASARAM 5. DISTRICT PROGRAMME OFFICER ROHTAS AT SASARAM 6. CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER RAJPUR, DISTT.- ROHTAS 7. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER NASRIGANJ BLOCK, DISTT.- ROHTAS AT SASARAM 8. GEETA DEVI W/O HIRAMAN SAH R/O VILLAGE AND P.O.- RAJANDIH, P.S.- RAJPUR (NASIRGANJ), DISTT. ROHTAS AT SASARAM ----------- 2/ 13/08/2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner was aggrieved by the appointment of respondent No.8 on the post of Angan Bari Sevika in the Rajdhani Panchayat, district- Rohtas on 1.9.2004. She approached this Court in C.W.J.C. No.7699/05 when this Court directed her representation to be considered in accordance with law. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that thereafter the District Magistrate granted hearing to the petitioner and passed orders on 17.8.2009 to take appropriate steps for her appointment. Learned counsel for the State rightly points out that the order dated 17.8.2009 is not a conclusive finding of any illegality by denial of appointment to the petitioner or an illegality committed in the appointment of - 2 - respondent No.8. The order is inconclusive. Additionally, this Court finds from Annexure- 4, the notice issued to the petitioner by the District Magistrate after the order of this Court on the earlier writ application, that respondent No.8 does not appear to have been noticed or heard. There is no pleading in the writ application that at the hearing by the District Magistrate respondent No.8 was also duly noticed and heard. This Court therefore finds it difficult to pass any positive orders at this stage. If so advised, the petitioner may approach the District Magistrate who shall then first examine whether respondent No.8 was heard at the stage when he granted a hearing to the petitioner. If no hearing was granted to respondent No.8, any hearing granted by the District Magistrate to the petitioner and any orders passed in pursuance thereof in favour of the petitioner are inconclusive, the District Magistrate is required to hear the petitioner and respondent No.8 all over again and then pass a fresh order. If there was no clear order by the District Magistrate on 17.8.2009 for appointment of the petitioner even with an ex parte finding in her favour, the District Magistrate is required to do no more and there is no need for him to hear respondent No.8 or initiate any fresh proceedings. - 3 - If the District Magistrate come to the conclusion that the order dated 17.8.2009 was well considered and discussed, but ex parte in favour of the petitioner, in that event he shall proceed in the manner first aforesaid directed. The application is disposed with the aforesaid observations to be complied with preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt/presentation of a copy of this order. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)