IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.10080 of 2005 Usha Kumari, w/o- Jawahar Kumar, r/o- village –Dibari, Post- Dibari, P.S.- Sonbarsa Katchahari, District- Saharsa. …… Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through the Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Department of Welfare, Bihar, Patna. 2. The Commissioner Koshi Range, Saharsa. 3. The District Magistrate, Saharsa. 4. The District Development Commissioner, Saharsa. 5. The Deputy Director, Social Welfare, Koshi Range, Saharsa. 6. The District Welfare Officer, Saharsa. 7. The Child Development Project Officer, Kahra, Saharsa. 8. Smt. Veena Kumari, w/o- Shri Arun Kumar, r/o- Dibari, Post- Dibari, P.S.- Sonbarsa Katchahari, District- Saharsa ………. Respondents ---------------------------------- 4 04.08.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the respondent no. 8 and the State. Sets of counter affidavits and reply thereto have been filed. The grievance of the petitioner is that she along with respondent No. 8 was applicant for the post of Aanganwari Sewika for Kahra Block in the district of Saharsa. It is the case of the petitioner that respondent No. 8 was placed at Sl. No. 1 of the select list since she had produced a certificate showing that the said respondent had passed Intermediate Arts examination. Petitioner was placed at Sl. No. 2. Subsequently, it was found that the certificate produced by respondent No. 8 was forged and fabricated one. It is the case of the petitioner that since her name stood at Sl. No. 2, she was sent for training for the post in question. There is no order on record selecting the petitioner in place of respondent No. 8 and thereafter sending her for training. In the meanwhile, the mater relating to 2 selection of Sevika for the centre in question was placed before and considered by the Aam Sabha of the Gram Panchayat in 2009 wherein respondent No. 8 was again selected for the said post. She was held passing Madhyama degree as her educational qualification. The case of respondent No. 8, on the other hand, is that she had applied treating herself Madhyama passed. The said certificate is equivalent to Intermediate Arts and as such she was selected in the first Aam Sabha held in the year 2004. Since a dispute was raised against the said selection, the matter was again placed and considered by the Aam Sabha in the year 2009 wherein she was again found suitable and selected for the post. It is the case of the respondent No. 8 that in the second selection process, petitioner was not even an applicant for the post since the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat is her husband. She was thus disqualified for the post. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner states that since the matter was pending in this Court and the State respondents were already directed to file counter affidavit, she did not participate in the said selection process. It is also contended that the said stand of the respondent No. 8 that her husband is Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat is totally misplaced/incorrect. On perusal of the pleadings on record and after 3 hearing the parties, this much is evident that several issues of fact are involved in the present case. It is difficult for a writ Court to delve into disputed questions of fact. The parties are, however, in agreement that in case of any dispute relating to selection to the post in question, the District Magistrate of the concerned district has been conferred with the jurisdiction to resolve the same in terms of the guidelines issued by the Government in the Department of Social Welfare (ICDS Directorate) as contained in letter bearing Memo No. 2783 dated 3.10.2006. It appears therefrom that in case of any dispute relating to selection and/or disengagement, the District Magistrate has been conferred with jurisdiction to consider and dispose of the said matter in accordance with Clause 11 of the aforesaid guidelines. This Court would only underline that in the matter of such selection, role of Aam Sabha has been given primacy under the relevant circular/guidelines of the government. Respondent No. 8 has come out with the case that in the subsequent meeting of the Aam Sabha, she has been selected and pursuant thereto, she is discharging the duties of Aanganwari Sewika for the centre in question. This Court would, thus, direct the respondent District Magistrate Saharsa to consider and resolve the issue relating to the appointment of Aanganwari Sewika for the centre in question. Both the parties would approach the said respondent 4 with a detailed representation annexing therewith copy of this order within four weeks from today whereafter the said respondent shall consider and resolve the dispute relating to appointment of Aanganwari Sewika to the post in question but after affording opportunity of hearing to both of them. It will be open to the respondent District Magistrate, Saharsa to call for concerned records if deemed necessary for resolution of the dispute. Continuance of the petitioner or respondent No. 8 on the post of Aanganwari Sewika of the centre in question shall abide by the final order to be passed by the respondent District Magistrate, Saharsa in terms of the present order. The application is disposed of. pkj (Kishore K. Mandal, J.)