IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10590 of 2007 KUMARI NIBHA SINHA, w/o Sri Sunil Kumar, Resident of Village Chhoti Pali,P. S. Narhat, District- Nawadah…… Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Commissioner-cum- Secretary, Welfare Department, Bihar, Patna. 2. The District Magistrate, Nawadah. 3. The District Programme Officer, Nawadah. 4. The Child Development Project Officer, Narhat, Block, Nawadah. 5. The Mukhiya, Pali Khurd Gram Panchayat, Narhat, Nawadah. …. Respondents ----------- 3. 03.12.2009. Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ application reads as follows:- “That this is an application for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing the order of the District Programme Officer, Nawadah (respondent no. 3) vide Memo No. 423 dated 23.5.07 (Annexure-5) by which the C.D.P.O. (Respondent no. 4) has been directed to rearrange the selection process of Anganbari Sevika/ Sahayika of Chhoti Pali and Beldari Centre as the earlier selection has been cancelled by the D.M.(Respondent No. 2), (Petitioner has been selected as Sevika for Chhoti Pali Anganbari Centre) and pursuant to the order of D.P.O. (respondent no.3) the C.D.P.O. vide letter No. 91 (Annexure-6) dated 30.7.07 has requested the Mukhiya (respondent no. 5) to arrange the meeting of General body for selection 2 for Chhoti Pali Centre. Further respondent be directed to send the petitioner for training as per letter dated 31.3.2007.” From the aforementioned relief portion, it would be clear that the petitioner is in fact aggrieved by the order of the Collector of the District as clearly referred to in the impugned order dated 23.5.2007 as contained in Annexure- 5 and its consequential order dated 30.7.2007 as contained in annexure-6. As per the circular of the State Government remedy against any decision taken by the Collector of the District as with regard to selection/appointment on the post of Anganwari Sevika is before the Commissioner of the Division. Admittedly, this petitioner has not filed such an appeal and has rushed to this court without exhausting the alternative remedy. That being so, this writ application is premature and is accordingly dismissed with an observation that if the petitioner even now would file an appeal before the 3 Commissioner of the Division within a period one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, he would decide the same on merit by speaking order without circumscribing the petitioner by any period of limitation by taking into consideration this writ application had remained pending over two years. kanchan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)