IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.793 of 2010 1. ANITA DEVI @ ANITA @ PAWNI DEVI W/O GANESH CHOUDHARY R/O VILL- TELIYARI (VIDYAPATI NAGAR) WARD NO. 18/19, P.S. SAHARSA, DISTT. SAHARSA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE SECRETARY SOCIAL WELFARE DEPTT., GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT SCHEME GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 4. THE CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER KAHARA (SAHARSA) 5. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE SAHARSA 6. THE DEPUTY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER SAHARSA 7. WARD COMMISSIONER WARD NO. 18/19, SAHARSA 8. RINA DEVI W/O BIJAY SAH R/O VILL/MOH- TELIYARI, P.S. SAHARSA, DISTT. SAHARSA FOR THE PETITIONER : - MR. CHANDRA MOHAN JHA, ADVOCATE FOR THE STATE : - MR. SANTOSH KUMAR SINGH, S.C. 22 MR. SANJAY KUMAR, ADVOCATE ----------- 02/ 02.07.2010 Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel appearing for the State. This application has been filed by the petitioner for quashing of the order dated 5.11.2009 passed by the Ward Commissioner of Ward No. 18 and 19 of Saharsa district. Further prayer is for a direction to the respondents-authorities to appoint the petitioner as Anganwari Sevika of Teliyari Block Anganwari Kendra. Petitioner is aggrieved on account of selection of Rina Devi as Anganwari Sevika. The selection of respondent no. 8 is being challenged on the ground that wrongly prepared mapping register, showing respondent no. 8 coming from majority group of population in - 2 - that area of selection, could facilitate selection of Respondent No. 8. Petitioner has placed reliance, on the mapping register prepared in 2007, according to which majority population residing in that area is of general category. As per the provision under the guidelines, in case none of the candidate belonging to the majority group is available for appointment, priority has to be given to the candidate belonging to Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe thereafter the candidate belonging to Backward category and in the last the general category. Since the petitioner belonged to Scheduled Caste category, as such in absence of any candidate from majority group, her candidature should have been considered. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State denying all allegations made by the petitioner. It has been stated that in the year 2009 fresh mapping register has been prepared, in accordance with the provision under the guidelines. In this mapping register the majority group of population belong to Backward class. The selection of respondent no. 8 was made vide resolution passed in the Aamsabha, since she belonged to Backward category. It has also been stated that on the date when Aamsabha was held - 3 - petitioner was absent. Further it is stated that since under the amended guidelines, for filing any objection in connection with selection, the complainant has to make it on affidavit even that was not done by the petitioner, as such there was no need to consider her objection. The objection raised by the petitioner in the present writ application, should have been initially raised before the District Magistrate as provided under the guidelines, there is clear provision under Clause 8 of the guidelines for filing objection in different stages of selection. The petitioner has not availed the opportunity as provided under the guidelines for filing objection, as such this application is being disposed of, giving liberty to the petitioner for raising her objection before the competent authority i.e. the District Magistrate, Saharsa. She will file her objection as per the provision under the guidelines. In case any objection is filed by the petitioner, that must be considered in accordance with the provisions of the guidelines by the District Magistrate, within the time specified in the guidelines. DKS/ (Mridula Mishra, J.)