IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5590 of 2010 1. Nitu Rani W/O Krishna Chandra Bose R/O Vill.- Parmanandpur, Nawtolia, Ward No. 16, P.S.- Madhepura (Ghailadh) And Distt.- Madhepura Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The District Magistrate Madhepura 3. The Sub-Divisional Officer Madhepura 4. The Child Development Project Officer Madhepura (Ghailadh) 5. The Mukhia, Gram Panchayat Raj Bhatrandha Parmanandpur, Block- Ghailadh, Distt.- Madhepura 6. The Secretary, Gram Panchayat Raj Bhatrandha Parmanandpur, Block- Ghailadh, Distt.- Madhepura ----------- 3. 09.09.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. No counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents notwithstanding the institution of the writ application on 31.3.2010 and time granted for the purpose on 29.11.2010. No useful purpose shall be served by keeping the writ petition pending for that reason in view of the nature of the order to be passed. Aggrieved by the selection of one Bibha Kumari to the detriment of the petitioner, the latter came to this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 3076 of 2008. During the pendency of that writ application the grievances stood redressed when the appointment of the former was cancelled. Directions had been given for a fresh selection process for which in the meantime the petitioner had already filed the present 2 writ application questioning the need for the fresh selection contending that she was required to be considered as the next candidate. Learned counsel submits that Bibha Kumari was appointed on 10.7.2007. From Annexure-5 of C.W.J.C. No. 3076 of 2008 learned counsel submits that the petitioner had objected to the appointment on 1.8.2007. That led to the termination of Bibha Kumari on 1.7.2009. Her appointment was terminated as she had obtained the appointment by playing fraud with regard to her qualification as informed to the petitioner under the Right to Information Act on 17.9.2009 in writing and a First Information Report lodged against the aforesaid. Learned counsel further relies upon a departmental instruction dated 24.5.2007 issued by the Social Welfare Department that in such cases the next empanelled candidate should be considered. Learned counsel for the State, in absence of a counter affidavit, submits that fresh selection may have been completed by now. A third person may get prejudiced. The circular dated 24.5.2007 is not a part of the record and therefore he is not in a position to make any submissions with regard to the same. 3 If a wrong appointment was made on 10.7.2007 and the petitioner protested on 1.8.2007 there can be no two opinions that the petitioner was vigilant for the enforcement of her rights. She has done so at the earliest available opportunity. The claim relates to appointment as an Agent for a Principal. Therefore the Principles of service jurisprudence that once a person has been appointed, the vacancy stands exhausted and any subsequent removal does not revive the vacancy but created a fresh vacancy may not be wholly appropriate in a relationship of the present nature. At least on the facts of the present case the Court is satisfied that it shall not be the most appropriate interpretation in the nature of the relationship between the parties. Moreover if the other candidate had secured appointment by fraud it tantamounts to no appointment at all as fraud operates from nativity and vitiates everything from the very inception. If that be so it will amount to no appointment at all having been made leaving the field open for the petitioner to be considered. But the Court cannot loose sight of the fact, as submitted on behalf of the State that fresh selections may have been held in the meantime and 4 fresh appointment made. Perhaps if the petitioner had made submissions with regard to the existing state of affairs it may have been possible for this Court to pass orders with clarity today. The Court is not persuaded to pass order of a nature which may affect a third person who is not a party to the present proceeding and does not have the opportunity to defend. Keeping in mind the nature of the appointment for dissemination of a Welfare scheme when it is made of a person who is a member of the dominant populace of the beneficiary area, an object with a social purpose, and the notification dated 24.5.2007 that in such cases the first attempt should be to make appointment of the next competent candidate but subject only to the calling of a fresh Aam Sabha, the Court considers it proper to pass the following order:- Let the petitioner appear before the District Magistrate along with a copy of the present order. If any fresh candidate has been appointed in after termination of Bibha Kumari, the District Magistrate shall make her aware of the present order also. The matter shall then be placed before the Aam Sabha which shall proceed to decide the matter. 5 The Court expects this procedure to be complied with within a maximum period of four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The writ application stands disposed. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)