IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3072 of 2004 SABITA SINGH, wife of Arbind Kumar Singh, resident of village- Rampur, Tola Rampur, P. O. Rampur, P. S. Simri Bakhtiyarpur, District- Saharsa. … Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Director, Social Welfare Department, Bihar, Patna. 3. The Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Bihar, Patna. 4. The Commissioner, Koshi Division, Saharsa. 5. The District Magistrate, Saharsa District- Saharsa 6. The Deputy Development Commissioner, Saharsa, District Saharsa. 7. The District Welfare Officer, Saharsa, District Saharsa. 8. The Child Development and Project Officer, Simri Bakhtiyarpur, District- Saharsa. 9. Mamta Devi, wife of Amar Kumar Singh, resident of village and P.O. Sardiha, P. S. Simri Bakhtiyarpur, District Saharsa.. …. Respondents. ----------- 4. 12.11.2009. Heard counsel for the petitioner, counsel for the State as also counsel for private respondent no. 9. Prayer made in this writ application of the petitioner reads as follows:- “1. That this is an application for issuance of writ in the nature of Mandamus, for direction directing the respondents to appoint the petitioner on the post of „Anganbari Sevika‟ who is bona fide candidate among the applicants, who applied for the post of Anganbari Sevika in the Block namely Simri Bakhtiyarpur in Saroja Panchayat at Centre Rampur Tola Rampur and also for direction, directing the 2 respondents to cancel the appointment, if the same was made, of the respondent no. 9, who has been selected illegally and without fulfilling the criteria of the appointment procedures of Anganbari Sevika as per order vide memo No. 2482 dated 23rd of Sep. 2002 along with Memo No. 1900 Patna dated 28.8.2002 as well as Memo No. 32 Patna dated 25.9.2001 and letter No. 1129 dated 13.06.1998. Any other appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions for which the petitioner shall be found entitled under the facts and circumstances of the case.” With reference to the aforementioned reliefs, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is better qualified being B. A. Hons. in comparison to respondent no. 9 who is only an Intermediate and even from the angle of income the petitioner belongs to lower income group, her income being Rs.18,000/- per annum against self declared income of respondent no. 9 to the tune of Rs.19,000/-per annum. It is also submitted that as a matter of fact, private respondent no. 9 is also not eligible for such appointment, as she does not belong to the Tola and further her selection and appointment was vitiated by 3 mala fide of the Mukhia of Gram Panchayat who had ante dated the date of meeting of Gram Sabha by making interpolation in the Proceeding Book a fact which gets substantiated from the counter affidavit. Meeting the aforementioned submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondent no. 9 would submit that if the selection was made by Gram Sabha upon a resolution taken in the meeting, the same cannot be lightly interfered by this Court specially when the petitioner has not availed the alternative remedy as provided by the State Government in the circular namely an enquiry to be conducted by local authority and a final decision thereon to be taken by the Collector of the District. In the opinion of this court, this writ application is premature as all the aforementioned grievance raised by the petitioner being pure question of facts could have been looked into and decided by the Collector of the District in the manner prescribed in the Circular of the State Government. The petitioner instead of 4 availing such alternative remedy had unnecessarily filed this writ application which on the face of record is not maintainable. In that view of the matter, whatever grievance of the petitioner may have against the selection and appointment of respondent no. 5, she may still represent to the Collector of the District who having extended an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, respondent no. 9 as also representative of gram panchayat in question would pass final order strictly in accordance with law. Let such exercise be completed within a period of six months from the date of filing of a fresh representation by the petitioner along with a copy of this order. With the aforementioned observations and directions, this writ application is disposed of. kanchan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)