IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7131 of 2007 RUBY KUMARI, wife of Venkatesh Sharma, Resident of Village Uchirma, Police Station Sherghati and District Gaya. ….Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. District Magistrate, Gaya. 3. District Welfare Officer, Gaya 4. Child Development Project Officer, Sherghati, District Gaya. 5. Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat-Chitabkala, Block-Sherghati, District- Gaya. … Respondents. ----------- 2. 26.11.2009. Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ application reads as follows:- “1. That this writ application is being filed for directing the respondent authorities to appoint the petitioner on the post of Anganwari Sevika in Uchirwa Kendra of Gram Panchayat Chitabkala in Block Sherghati, District Gaya to direct the Collector, Gaya and Child Development Project Officer, Sherghati to correct illegality committed in demarking the land/area which would fall under Uchirma Kendra and for all consequential reliefs to which the petitioner is found entitled during course of hearing of this writ application.” With reference to the aforementioned reliefs, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that from the 2 reading of the averments of the writ application it becomes clear that there was an obvious mala fide on the part of the official respondents to eliminate the petitioner from the zone of consideration by changing the area of centre in question for which initially she was qualified in terms of notice issued by concerned Gram Panchayat. Learned counsel for the petitioner would also submit that this fact as with regard to arbitrary change of area in the centre within a period of two days of such notice was also brought to the notice of Collector by the petitioner vide Annexure- 5 and 7 but the same having elicited no response, the petitioner had moved this court on 30.5.2007 by filing the instant writ application. This court would find that notice in question was issued vide Annexure-2 sometime in the month of April, 2007. Thereafter, the change in area by fresh notice was made in the same month and the representation filed by the petitioner on 20.4.2007 and its reminder on 30.4.2007 was 3 required to be looked into by the Collector of the District in terms of Government Circular. Counsel for the petitioner, however, is not in a position to inform as to whether on account of change of area in the concerned centre any selection or appointment has already been made. Thus, if any person had already been appointed on account of arbitrary change in the area by itself excluding the case of the petitioner even from the zone of consideration, it would still be open for the petitioner to file a fresh representation to the Collector of the District who then with reference to two earlier representations filed by the petitioner as noted above would examine the whole issue by issuance of notice to the concerned Gram Panchayat as also to the newly appointed Anganbari Sevika. Any decision which may be taken by the Collector on its own merit must be by reasoned order and after extending an opportunity of hearing to all concerned. In the event, the petitioner would 4 file such a representation along with a copy of this order within a period of two months from today the same would be disposed of by the Collector of the District within next four months and aggrieved party of course, will have remedy of appeal as against the order of the Collector. With the aforementioned observations and directions, this writ application is disposed of. kanchan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)