IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14241 of 2005 BENAZIR YUSUF, wife of Abdul Ashraf Ansari, resident of village Salempatti, Panchayat Mahaich, Block Uchakagaon, District Gopalganj … Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The District Magistrate, Gopalganj 3. The District Welfare Officer, Gopalganj 4. The Child Development Project Officer, Uchakagaon, District Gopalganj … Respondents. ----------- 3. 13.11.2009 Heard counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the State. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ application reads as follows: “Writ application is for issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding upon the respondents for a direction to the respondent authorities to appoint the petitioner on the post of Anganbari Sevika in view of the decision of the Gram Sabha, taken in the meeting of 16.8.2002 under the Chairmanship of Mukhia, Gram Panchayat Mahaicha whereby and whereunder it was decided that the petitioner is selected for appointment as Anganbari Sevika in the village Salempatti under the Gram Panchayat Mahaicha in terms of rule, she belongs to the same village and „Tolly‟ and the same ward in which she represents the majority community of the ward and village.” 2 With reference to the aforementioned relief learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that even when the selection of the petitioner was made by the Gram Sabha in question the consequential appointment letter was not issued by the concerned C.D.P.O. and thereafter having waited sufficiently she has filed the present writ application for the aforementioned relief. The genuineness of such relief of the petitioner in fact gets exposed from paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit which reads as follows: “The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for issuing direction upon the respondents authorities to appoint the petitioner on the post of Anganbari Shevika of Salem patti Anganbari Centre under Uchkagaon Block of Gopalganj District. As per guidelines of Government. Salempati Anganbari Kendra was established in ward no.7 of Mahicha Panchayat which is Muslim populated area. The post of Anganbari Shevika of Salem Patti ward no.7 was vacant due to registration of previous Shevika on 16.2.2002 which was to be filed up 3 by adopting the procedures fixed for selection of Anganbari Shevika by the Dept. of Welfare. Five persons were filed application for selection on the post of Anganbari Sevika Salem patti ward no.7. Respondent no.4 Uchgaon issued memo no. 207 for meeting of Aam Sabha on 16.8.2002. The meeting of Aam Sabha was held in Chairman ship of Mukhiya Mahicha Panchayat. All the five candidates namely 1. Benazir Yusuf, 2. Usha Kumari, 3. Mala Kumari, 4. Musturi Begam. Appeared in the Aam Sabha and their petitions were considered. Mala Kumari, Musturi Begam Sweta Kumari were declared disqualified on the ground that they were not in habitants of Poshak Kshetra of the Anganbari Kendra i.e. ward no.7. Usha Kumari was resident of ward no.7 But she was not coming from beneficiaries class so, her petition was not considered by the Aam Sabha remaining one Benazir Yusuf was coming from minority and Kaushilya Singh ward member of ward no.7 Supported the benazir Yusuf is resident of ward no.7 and accordingly Benazir Yusuf was declared as selected Anganbari Sevika of ward no.7. In the meantime Prakhand Pramukh Uchakagaon reported vide his letter 4 no. 657 dated 2.9.2002 that selection of Anganbari Sevika has been made against the guide lines of the Govt. Banzir Yusuf is resident of ward no.6 but under presser of Mukhiya Kaushalya Singh Ward Sadashya of Ward No.7 wrongly supported Benzir Yusuf as resident of ward no.7. The Prakhand Pramukh further reported that name of the husband Benzir Yusuf is entered in the electoral roll of ward no.6 at SI. 255 House No.112 and her father‟s name is entered at S.I.No. 187 of the same electrol roll. The C.D.P.O. Uchakagaon reported to the Collector Gopalganj about irregular selection of Anganbari Sevika of Salempatti ward no.7 vide his letter no. 310 dated 27.11.2004 Smt. Kaushalya Singh also filed a petition to the Collector stating therein that she supported Benazir Yusuf to be the resident of ward no.7 under pressure of Mukhiya through Benazir Yusuf is actually resident of ward no.6. The Collector Gopalganj directed vide letter no. 895 dated 14.9.2003 the Mukhiya Mahaiche to select Anganbari Sevika of Anganbari Kendra of Salempatti ward no.7 through holding a fresh Gram Sabha is inspite of repeated reminders the Mukhia could not organized 5 fresh Gram Sabha. At last Up- Mukhiya Uchakagaon held Aam Sabha on 5.7.2005 in which Usha Kumari was selected as Anganbari Sevika of Kendra no.25 of Salempatti ward no.7 in pursuance of B.D.O. The B.D.O. Uchakangaon forwarded the proceedings of Gram Sabha held on 9.7.2005 along with Educational certificate of the candidates with a direction to take further necessary action vide his letter no. 3/Mukh dated 12.1.2006 as per decision taken in Aam Sabha held on 9.7.2005 Usha Kumari was appointed as Anganwari Sevika of Kendra no.25 of Salempatti ward no.7 who is graduate and comes from Harizan community.” There is no denial to the aforementioned facts in the counter affidavit by the petitioner though a copy of the counter affidavit was served at least six months earlier on the counsel for the petitioner. That apart this Court would find that now in view of the direction of the competent authority, namely, the Collector of the District a fresh process of selection was undergone and in that one Usha Kumari 6 was appointed. There is also a finding of fact that the petitioner is not resident of the locality in which her appointment was earlier sought to be made. Counsel for the petitioner, however, would submit that her house is in the same locality and Tola and only her Bathan is in Ward no.6. Such stand with regard to domicile/ place of residence of the petitioner is strongly controverted by the counsel for the State by mentioning the name of the petitioner in Electoral roll showing to be ward no.6. All these disputed question of fact in fact could not have been gone into in writ jurisdiction. To top it all, when the petitioner himself has not controverted the appointment of Usha Kumari nor has assailed the same today there cannot be appointment of two persons on the same post. That being so, if the petitioner is in any way aggrieved on account of selection and appointment her remedy would only lie by filing a representation before the Collector of the District, who may finally adjudicate all these questions of facts including the 7 case of domicile/ residence of the petitioner. With the aforementioned observations and direction, this application is disposed of. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/