IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11446 of 2007 GEETA KUMARI wife of Sanjay Kumar, resident of village-Karmu Bigha, P.O. Mokhtarganj, p.S. Chhabilapur, District-Nalanda. Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR 2.The Commissioner Cum Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 3.District Magistrate, District- Nalanda, at Bihar Sharif. 4.District Welfare Officer, District Nalanda. 5.Child Development Project Officer Block Rajgir Distt. Nalanda. 6.Block Development Officer, Block Rajgir Nalanda. 7.Pappu kumar, Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Raj Lodipur, block Rajgir, Distt. Nalanda. 8.Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Raj Lodipur, Block Rajgir Distt. Nalanda. 9.Tanaja Devi Wife of Kumar Saurabh Village karmu Bigha, P.S. Chhabilapur, District Nalanda. ----------- 2 4/12/2009 Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. Prayer of the petitioner in this writ application reads as follows:- “To issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ or writs, direction or directions commanding upon the respondents authorities to appoint the petitioner at the Anganbari Sevika of Anganbari Centre, Karmur bigha of Gram Panchayat Raj Lodipur, Block Rajgir Distt. Nalanda, after cancelling the appointment of respondent no.9 who has illegally been appointed to the information of petitioner by mukhiya in connivance with other official as the respondent no.9 has been appointed without convening the Aam Sabha and secondly the respondent no.9 does not posses the requisite qualification.’’ 2 Counsel for the petitioner with respect to the aforementioned relief would submit that as a matter of fact the case of the petitioner for her appointment was segregated right from the inception by not accepting her application for being considered for selection and appointment on the post of Anganbari Sevika and as such the entire procedure for the same leading to selection and appointment of respondent no.9 was vitiated. Counsel for the State, on the other hand, with reference to the pleadings in the counter affidavit would submit that the petitioner as a matter of fact had never filed any application and this aspect of the matter was also gone into by the Collector of the district who had also entrusted an enquiry to the S.D.O. In this context he would refer to the enquiry report of the S.D.O. which reads as follows:- vuqe.My dk;kZy;]jktxhj i= la[;k &1911 izs"kd] vuqe.My inkf/kdkjh] jktxhj A lsok esa] mi lekgrkZ] izHkkjh tu f”dk;r dks"kkax] ukyUnk A jktxhk] fnukad 17&08&2007 izlax% i= la[;k %5353] fnukad 11&07&2007 egksn;] mi;ZqDr izlaxk/khu i= ds }kjk vkosnudrkZ jkeoyh izlkn] xzke djew foxgk] iapk;r yksnhiqj] iz[ka.M jktxhj us f”dk;r nh gS fd eqf[k;k th us feurk nsoh] ifr ukxsUnz dqekj dk p;u dj fy;k gS A ftlds ifjokj esa pfp;k lkl ehuk nsoh] tkSts jkt dqekj izlkn] f”f{kdk ds in ij djewfoxgk esa dk;Zjr gSa A eqf[k;k th 3 ls dkjZokbZ iath dh ekax dh xbZ A dkjZokbZ iath esa es/kk lwph Hkh vafdr gS A es/kk lwph ds vuqlkj ruqtk nsoh] ifr dqekj lkSjHk dks lsfodk ds in ij p;u fd;k x;k gS] ftldk vad 65&8 izfr”r gS A feurk nsoh ftlds ckjs esa vkosnd us dgk gS] mldk p;u fd;k gh ugha x;k gS A mldk vkosnu Hkh es/kk lwph es vafdr ugha gS A xhrk nsoh] ifr lat; ;kno] xzke djewfoxgk dks vkosnd ds vuqlkj xzkeh.k yksx lsfodk ds in ij p;u djuk pkgrs gS A ijUrq es/kk lwph esa xhrk nsoh dk uke vafdr ugha gS A blls Li"V gS fd xhrk nsoh us vkosnu fn;k gh ugha gS A vkosnu ugha ysus ds laca/k esa vkosnd us dksbZ f”dk;r ugha dh gS A ruqtk nsoh] ifr dqekj lkSjHk ftldk p;u fd;k x;k gS] mldk x‘g la[;k % ernkrk lwph esa 25 gS] tcfd ehuk nsoh] ifr jktdqekj izlkn] tks lgk;d f”f{kdk gS] mudk x‘g la[;k ernkrk lwph esa 24 gS A blfy, p;fur lsfodk dks f”f{kdk ds ifjokj ls gksuk Hkh fl) ugha gksrk gS A nksuksa ifjokj vyx vyx gS A vr%vkosnd dk vkjksi izekf.kr ugha gksrk gSA vuqyXud%& dk;zokgh dh Nk;k izfr layXu gS A fo’oklHkktu] vLi"V 17&8&07 vuqe.My inkf/kdkjh] jktxhj A Counsel for the petitioner in reply has submitted that Annexure-2/1, a representation filed by the petitioner to the Deputy Development Commissioner as also to the Child Development Project Officer, Rajgir by themselves are sufficient to show that the petitioner at the earliest point of time had made a protest when her application was not accepted by the Mukhiya/Jan Sevak. From reading of the materials on records as also Annexure-2/1 relied by counsel for the petitioner it 4 appears that the representation which was addressed to the Deputy Development Commissioner did not contain any date nor there is any proof of its being received in his office. The another representation, which is said to have been filed by the petitioner is addressed to the Child Development Project Officer (C.D.P.O.), is dated 6.7.2007 and is also said to have been received on the same date, i.e, 6.7.2007. From the records, however, it would be clear that the advertisement was made some time in the month of May, 2007, whereafter applications were received by the Panchayat Sevak and all such applicaions were placed in the meeting on 8.6.2007, whereafter a final decision was taken by the Aam Sabha on 18.6.2007. It would therefore be clear that the petitioner did not raise her alleged grievance at the relevant point of time and in fact came out to make her application to the C.D.P.O. only on 6.7.2007 by which date all the formalities for selection were already completed. It thus becomes clear that the petitioner had ultimately raised her grievance before the Collector of the district at a belated stage and an enquiry was entrusted to the S.D.O. Rajgir, who as noticed above had also not found any merit in any of the issues raised by the petitioner. In that view of the matter, this Court would find no merit in the aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the petitioner. Infact it becomes clear that the petitioner 5 had never filed any application for her selection and therefore there was also no question of her case being considered for selection and appointment on the post of Anganbari Sevika. That being so, this application is devoid of any merit and is accordingly dismissed. Abhay Kumar (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)