IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7659 of 2005 KAVITA DEVI, wife of Pramod Sharma, resident of village Dhrupganj, P.S. Kharik, District Bhagalpur … Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The District Magistrate, Bhagalpur 3. The Block Development Officer, Kharik, District Bhagalpur 4. Diwakar Singh @ Diwak Kuer, son of Sachhidanand Singh, resident of village Dhrupganj, P.S. Kharik, District Bhagalpur (presently elected Mukhiya of Dhrupganj Gram Panchayat) 5. Manju Devi, wife of Ram Bilash Das, resident of village Dhrupganj, P.S. Kharik, District Bhagalpur … Respondents. ----------- 3. 13.11.2009 Heard counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the State. The prayer in this writ application of the petitioner reads as follows: “(A) A writ in the nature of certiorari be issued and thereby to quash the selection of respondent no.5 on the post of Sevika for Ward No.5 within the Dhrupganj Gram Panchayat situating in the District of Bhagalpur. (B) A further writ, order or direction be issued commanding the respondents authorities to conduct the selection process for the post of Sevika and Sahaika for ward no.5 afresh with all the possible fairness and impartiality.” 2 With reference to the aforementioned relief counsel for the petitioner would submit that the entire decision adopted for appointment of respondent no.5 was vitiated and perfunctory, inasmuch as even when in the mapping of the area the same was found to be of the backward class majority somehow the appointment of a Scheduled Caste candidate was made who according to the petitioner did not form the majority of the area. He would also submit that respondent no.5 claims to have passed only Class VIII examination and that too on the basis of forged and fabricated educational certificate. Counsel would further point out that to top it all when respondent no.5 had filed her application only for the post of Sahaika which would be apparent from Annexure „A‟ to the counter affidavit, she could not have been selected and appointed on the post of Gram Panchayat Sewika. In the opinion of this Court such grievance of the petitioner in the first instance ought to have been raised and decided by the Collector of the District, 3 especially when six of the ten Ward Members of concerned Gram Panchayat had drawn his attention by filing a joint representation. Technically the Collector may be right in not noticing such grievance of the representation of the people inasmuch as the candidate concerned including the petitioner according to him may not have filed such representation but then when such a glaring thing vitiating the entire selection and appointment in question was brought to the notice of the Collector of the District he being the prescribed authority should not have closed his eyes for perpetuating such illegal appointment. The basic concept of appointment on the post of Anganwari Sevika/ Sahaika is to select person from the population forming the majority and if the area was one in which backward people had the majority there was no question of giving preference to a candidate of Scheduled Caste. All these are, however, subject matter of enquiry and therefore, as the illegality cannot be allowed to perpetuate even today this Court would direct the Collector of the District 4 to hold an enquiry in the appointment of respondent no.5 and if it is found that the appointment of respondent no.5 was in violation of the circulars issued by the State Government on the subject which were then prevalent on the date of appointment of respondent no.5, he would pass a speaking order but before doing so he will give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, respondent no.5 as also the representative of the concerned Gram Panchayat. In order to shorten out this process, this Court would also give liberty to the petitioner to file a compact representation and the Collector would start his enquiry and pass a final order in the manner indicated above within a period of six months from the date of filing of such representation by the petitioner. If the Collector of the District would come to a conclusion that the appointment of respondent no.5 was not justified he having set aside the appointment of respondent no.5 would direct the C.D.P.O. to hold a fresh meeting of Gram Sabha for selection of Anganwari Sevika/ Sahaika strictly in 5 accordance with law and the present circular as in force today. With the aforementioned observations and directions, this application is disposed of. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/