IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3981 of 2010 1. KRISHNAWATI DEVI W/O SRI PRABHUNATH CHAUDHARY R/O VILL.- JHAKARA, TOLA- MALAHI, P.S.- JAGDISHPUR (NAUTAN), DISTT.- WEST CHAMPARAN Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE WEST CHAMPARAN AT BETTIAH 3. THE DISTRICT WELFARE OFFICER-CUM-THE DISTRICT PROGRAMME OFFICER WEST CHAMPARAN AT BETTIAH 4. THE SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER BETTIAH SADAR, WEST CHAMPARAN 5. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER NAUTAN BLOCK, DISTT.- WEST CHAMPARAN 6. THE CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER NAUTAN, DISTT.- WEST CHAMPARAN 7. THE BLOCK PRAMUKH NAUTAN BLOCK, DISTT.- WEST CHAMPARAN 8. THE MUKHIYA GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ-DHUMNAGAR, BLOCK-NAUTAN, DISTT.- WEST CHAMPARAN 9. THE PANCHAYAT SECRETARY GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ-JHAKARA, P.S.- NAUTAN, DISTT.- WEST CHAMPARAN ----------- 2/ 21/09/2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by the con- consideration of her representations dated 29.10.2009 and 30.10.2009 by the District Magistrate raising the grievance that the selection process for appointment of Angan Bari Sevika/Sahayika at Angan Bari Centre No.175(Malahi Tola-Jhakara Village) of the Nautan Block in district- West Champaran was not being concluded. It is submitted that advertisement inviting applications inter alia for appointment as Angan Bari Sevika at Angan Bari Centre No.175 in Malahi Tola- Jhakara Panchayat was issued on 30.9.2009. The petitioner has filed repeated representations in the matter - 2 - that despite captive population belonging to the extremely backward class, appointment was sought to be made from another caste by transfer of Angan Bari Sevika from another centre. A counter affidavit has been filed affirmed by the C.D.P.O. on behalf of the District Magistrate also. It does not deny that the petitioner has represented before the District Magistrate. It gives no explanation why the representation has not been considered and disposed by the District Magistrate himself. This Court fails to understand why an issue of appointment of agents of the Government, who are not even government servants, are thrust upon the Court in the form of an application under Article-226 of the Constitution of India because of administrative deficiency. If the District Magistrate had disposed off the representation, it is a possibility that the petitioner may have got relief and/or have been satisfied that she had no case for reasons of the discussions contained therein preventing an unavoidable litigation from coming to the Court. The counter affidavit does not even state that the advertisement dated 30.9.2009 has been cancelled or - 3 - revoked. The counter affidavit is considered wholly inadequate, hardly of any assistance to the Court in disposal of the matter. The entire issue is therefore referred to the District Magistrate who is expected to pass a reasoned and speaking order after granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner or in representative capacity in accordance with law. If the District Magistrate is satisfied that the process of appointment in pursuance of advertisement No.2/04 dated 30.9.2009 was not brought to its logical conclusion for other than justifiable reasons, this Court expects the District Magistrate to act appropriately in that circumstance. Let such consideration be done and the matter disposed off preferably within a maximum period of four months from the date of receipt/presentation of a copy of this order. The writ application stands disposed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)