IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10829 of 2007 Sunita Devi, Wife of Sri Ramdeo Yadav, Resident of Village Bharkahua, Tola-Lilmi, Ward No.16, P.S. Barhat, District Jamui. --------- Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Commissioner, Munger. 3. The Collector, Jamui. 4. The Child Development Project Officer, Laxmipur cum Barhat, Jamui. 5. The District Welfare Officer, Jamui. 6. The Secretary of Gram-Panchayat, P.O. + P.S. Barhat, District Jamui. 7. Mukhiya, Barhat-Gram Panchayat, P.O. + P.S. Barhat, District Jamui. 8. Binita Rai @ Binita Devi, Wife of Ravindra Yadav, Resident of Village Bharkahua, Gram Panchayat Numar, P.S. Barhat, District Jamui. ---------- Respondents ----------- 2 3.12.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State as also counsel for the respondent no.8. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ application reads as follows:- “1. That through this writ application, the petitioner seeks indulgence of this Hon’ble Court for issuance of writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions select the petitioner as Anganbari Sevika at tola-Lilmi ward no. 16, village Bharkahua Panchayat + P.S. Barhat, District Jamui commanding the respondents authority to canceling the selection of Binita Rai, wife of Ravindra Yadav on the post of Aangan bari Sevika vide decision of Aam 2 Sabha of Gram Panchayat dated 18.4.2007 for ward no. 16 at tola Lilmi of village Bharkahua, Gram Panchayat- Barhat, District- Jamui.” With reference to the aforementioned relief, when a query was made from the learned counsel for the petitioner as to whether the petitioner had moved before the Collector of the district being a prescribed authority under the circular/guideline of the State Government to look into any anomaly in the selection/appointment on the post of Anganbari Sevika, he would fairly submit that no such representation was ever filed before the Collector though a copy of the representation filed before the Chief Minister was given to the Collector of the district. In the opinion of this Court, such representation filed by the petitioner was before the Chief Minister of the State and not before the Collector of the district. When an authority has been prescribed for looking into the grievance on a particular issue, it is that authority who has to be moved directly instead of the person concerned going to superior authority or for that purpose to the Chief Minister who has directly been given no 3 role in the circular/guideline of the State Government. That being so, this writ application is premature and hence not maintainable. Learned counsel for the petitioner in such circumstance would seek leave of this Court to withdraw this application in order to move the Collector of the district by filing a compact representation. At this stage, learned counsel for the respondent no.8 would submit that the plea of the petitioner that the respondent no.8 was not the resident of the concerned Panchayat is incorrect, inasmuch as, a certificate contained in Annexure-A and the residential certificate issued by the competent authority would go to show that the respondent no.8 was a resident of Barhat Gram Panchayat. In the opinion of this Court, all these aspects involving pure question of facts can be better appreciated if the same in the first instance is looked into by the authority as prescribed by the State Government i.e. the Collector of the district. That being so, counsel for the 4 petitioner is permitted to withdraw this writ application with a liberty to the petitioner to file a representation before the Collector of the district as against the selection/appointment of the respondent no.8 and in the event, such a representation is filed by the petitioner, the same would be disposed of by a reasoned order after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the respondent no.8 and the concerned representative of the Barhat Gram Panchayat. It will be open for the parties including respondent no.8 to adduce any evidence including those certificates filed in the counter affidavit to substantiate her claim and justification of her selection/appointment. Let it be made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case of either of the parties i.e. the petitioner and the respondent no.8 and therefore, the Collector of the district would still be under obligation to decide the same in accordance with the guidelines/circular of the State Government on the subject. 5 With the aforementioned observations and liberty, this application is permitted to be withdrawn. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)