IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13167 of 2005 1. SHARDA DEVI, W/o Lallan Sah 2. Vaijanti Devi, W/o Hiralal Prasad Both resident of village and P.O. Bahrauli, Pandey Tola, P.S. Mashrakh, District Saran at Chapra … Petitioners Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Divisional Commissioner, Saran 3. The Director, Social Welfare cum Co-ordinator of the Project, ICDS, Saran 4. The District Magistrate, Saran at Chapra 5. The District Development Commissioner, Saran at Chpara 6. The District Welfare Officer, Saran at Chapra 7. The Child Development Project Officer, Mashrak, Saran 8. Shri Bhushan Singh (Sadhu), Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Raj-7, Bahrauli, Saran Bihar 9. Uma Devi, W/o Sawalia Ram, resident of village and P.O. Bahrauli Pandey Tola, P.S. Mashrakh, District Saran … Respondents. ----------- 3. 13.11.2009 No one appears for the petitioner. Counsel for the State is present. The prayer in this writ application of the petitioners reads as follows: “The petitioners seek the indulgence of this Hon‟ble Court for issuance of a writ in the nature of „mandamus‟ or appropriate direction commanding the respondents to make appointment of the petitioners as Aanganbari Sevika and Sahayika at Pandey Tola, Centre No. 1 and 2 in Bahrauli Gram Panchayat within the judisdiction of Mashrakh Block in the district of Saran for which recommendation was made with the consent of the 2 general meeting (Aamsabha) and was given/handed over to Child Development Project Officer, Mashrakh, Saran and who fulfil all the eligibility and qualification in terms of the norms laid down in the policy decision of the Welfare Department of the Govt. of Bihar. They further pray that if any appointment has been made to the said posts of Aanganbari Sevika and Sahayika at Center No. 1 and 2 Pandey Tola of Bahrauli Gram Panchayat other than the petitioners not in conformity with the norms and standard laid down in the Govt. policy, be called up and quashed.” In the opinion of this Court such grievance of the petitioners, as raised in this writ application, being absolutely based on a pure question of fact in the first instance ought to have been raised before the Collector of the District. This Court would notice that petitioner no.1 had of course filed a representation but then in the same she had only confined her grievance with regard to her non-selection/ appointment and had not pointed out any infirmity in the appointment of respondent 3 no.9 even when the post in question has already been filled up by way of appointment of respondent no.9. Infact if petitioner no.1 had any grievance as against the appointment of respondent no.9 she had to assail the same by filing a representation before the Collector of Saran District. In that view of the matter, this Court would dispose of this writ application by giving liberty to both the petitioners to file their individual representation before the Collector of the District and in the event such a representation is filed by them the same would be disposed of expeditiously preferably within a period of six months from the date of filing of such representation along with a copy of this order. Let it be made clear that this Court has expressed no opinion on the merits of the claim of either of the petitioners or private respondent. It would be, therefore, open for the authorities including the Collector of the District to take a final decision strictly in accordance with law. 4 Surendra/ With the aforementioned observations and directions, this application is disposed of. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.)