IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.454 of 2010 1. Hemlata Kumari W/O Vijay Kumar Mandal R/O Kusaha, P.S. Kahalgaon,Distt-Bhagalpur Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The District Magistrate Distt-Bhagalpur 3. The Commissioner Bhagalpur Division, Bhagalpur 4. The Child Development Project Officer Kahalgaon, Bhagalpur 5. The Sub-Divisional Officer Kahalgaon, Bhagalpur 6. The Mukhiya , Gram Panchayat Paki Sarai,Kahalgaon Block, Distt-Bhagalpur 7. Anjali Bharati W/O Sri Ajit Kumar Mandal R/O Vill Kusaha, P.S.Khalgaon,Distt-Bhagalpur ----------- 3. 02.09.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the State and for respondent no. 7. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 10.12.2009 passed by the Commissioner, Bhagalpur Division, in Appeal No. 20 of 2008-09 preferred by respondent no. 7 directing fresh selection of Anganwari Sewika at Gram Panchayat, Paki Sarai. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on 20.4.2007 the Aam Sabha selected the petitioner. Contrary to the same appointment was wrongly given to respondent no. 7 leading to a complaint by the petitioner before the District Magistrate. After hearing the parties, on 27.12.2008 the District Magistrate held that the appointment of respondent no. 7 was the result of a fraud and forgery and set aside her appointment directing the petitioner to be appointed. Respondent no. 7 preferred an appeal. 2 The appellate authority without dealing with the issues of fraud and forgery against respondent no. 7 has upset the order by directing fresh selection. If the appointment of respondent no. 7 was wrong, the petitioner was rightly directed to be considered. Counsel for the respondents submitted that respondent no. 7 was at serial no. 1 of the panel and the petitioner was at serial no. 3. If the appointment of respondent no. 7 was bad for any reason, the appellate order directing fresh selection required no interference. Learned counsel for the petitioner is right in his submission that if the District Magistrate had returned a finding after hearing the parties of fraud, forgery and manipulation of the appointment of respondent no. 7 before interfering with that order, the appellate authority was required to discuss and deal with the findings. He could not ignore the findings and proceed to give any directions for a fresh selection merely because the petitioner may not have been able to present to her own claim for appointment to the satisfaction of the appellate authority. The two are distinct issues and cannot be clubbed together. The petitioner may or may not have had a claim for appointment, yet the aspect of fraud and forgery should in all fairness of procedure have been discussed by the 3 appellate authority. However in view of the fact that the appellate authority has given directions for a fresh selection, the Court in the facts is not persuaded to interfere. The findings of the District Magistrate against respondent no. 7 are left open for consideration at the appropriate state. Keeping in mind that the matter relates to appointment of Anganwari Sewika who are only agents of the State Government and a finding of infirmities in the selection procedure by the authorities, the Court is not persuaded to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to interfere in the matter further. This is reinforced by the Division Bench in L.P.A. No. 772 of 2011. Declining interference, the Court directs fresh process of selection of Anganwari Sewika in the Gram Panchayat , Paki Sarai to be held afresh, if not already done. The writ application stands disposed. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)