IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.259 of 2008 MINA KUMARI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 2/ 12/11/2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State. It is not considered necessary to issue notice to respondent No.9 at this stage in view of the nature of the order proposed. The petitioner came to this Court originally questioning the appointment of respondent No.9 in preference to her on the post of Angan Bari Sevika. The counter affidavit affirmed by the Child Development Officer on 24.11.2008 states that the grievances of the petitioner had been enquired and it was found false. The petitioner has placed on record an order of the District Programme Officer dated 12.3.2008 at Annexure-16 on the written objection of the petitioner that she was wrongly denied appointment and setting aside the appointment of respondent No.9. This case is perhaps very symptomatic of the casual manner in which the authorities of the State appear to be treating matters before this Court, when they do not bother to make proper statements in the counter affidavits much less to read them before 2 signing. The counter affidavits appear to be filed with utmost casualness which is a matter to be appropriately looked into by the District Magistrate, Nawadah on the administrative side. Learned counsel for the petitioner has very fairly placed before the Court a copy of the order dated 13.7.2009 passed by the District Magistrate, Nawadah in an appeal filed by respondent No.9 questioning the order dated 3.12.2008. This Court is at a loss to understand as to how the District Magistrate is treating the pendency of the present application before this Court as a bar to exercise of jurisdiction with regard to the appeal filed by respondent No.9. It stands to reason that any claim by the petitioner in pursuance of the order dated 3.12.2008 of the District Programme Officer shall depend on the continuance of the order of the District Programme Officer, which is being tested in the appeal filed by respondent No.9. The order of the District Magistrate dated 13.7.2009 only multiplies litigation for this Court. It is such matters which are imposing unnecessary burden on this Court. Let the District Magistrate, Nawadah decide the appeal of respondent No.9 after hearing all concerned by a reasoned and speaking order within a 3 maximum period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order before him. If the District Magistrate sets aside the order of the District Programme Officer dated 3.12.2008, nothing further is required to be adjudicated insofar as the petitioner is concerned. She will then avail her remedy before the Commissioner, if so advised. However, if the District Magistrate upholds the order of the District Programme Officer, in that event he shall satisfy himself from the official records if the petitioner had approached the authorities during the period of one year from the date of the panel prepared for appointment and from which respondent No.9 came to be appointed. If the District Magistrate is satisfied that the petitioner had either represented/approached within one year of the panel, there shall be no justification for fresh selection and the authorities are bound to make appointment in accordance with law from the existing panel. The writ application stands disposed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)