IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1616 of 2010 1. SUMITRA DEVI W/O RAM AYODHYA SAH R/O VILL.- TEKANPUR, P.O. KUSUMHRA, P.S.- SURAJPURA, DISTT.- ROHTAS Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY 2. THE DIRECTOR, I.C.D.S. SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE ROHTAS 4. THE DISTRICT PROGRAMME OFFICER ROHTAS AT SASARAM 5. THE SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER BIKRAMGANJ (ROHTAS) 6. THE CHILD DEVELOPMENT, PROJECT OFFICER BIKRAMGANJ, (ROHTAS) ----------- 2/ 29/07/2010 Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to implead the selected candidate as respondent No.7. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 19.12.2008 setting aside her appointment on the post of Angan Bari Sevika in preference to private respondent No.7. Strong reliance is placed on the letter of the Deputy Development Commissioner-cum-Chief Executive Officer, Sasaram dated 6.3.2009 vide Memo. No.68 addressed to the District Board, Rohtas at Sasaram stating that the application of respondent No.7 had not been received within the prescribed time and for that reason her case was declined consideration by the Aam - 2 - Sabha. The submission therefore is that per se there is no justification for the appointment of respondent No.7 unseating the petitioner only on the ground that a typographical error in recording her name was corrected. It is submitted that in any event there was no error in recording of the name of the petitioner in the proceedings of the Aam Sabha including the name of her husband. The error lay in the correction made in her name in the Matriculation Certificate only. The petitioner is stated to have already preferred a representation before the District Magistrate on 10.9.2009. This Court directs the District Magistrate to dispose of the representation after hearing all concerned including respondent No.7 within a maximum period of two months from the date of receipt/presentation of a copy of this order by a reasoned and speaking order. This Court requires the District Magistrate to record a clear and specific finding after verification of the original records if respondent No.7 had applied within time and whether the Aam Sabha had rejected her application satisfied that it was beyond time. This Court further requires the District Magistrate to satisfy himself from the original records whether there is any error in the writing of the name of the petitioner in the proceedings of - 3 - the Aam Sabha and the merit list which error has necessarily to be read in conjunction with the name of the candidate as also her husband’s name and then arrive at a specific finding so as to facilitate judicial review by this Court, should the need arise. The application stands disposed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)