IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.1244 of 2009 Kiran Kumari w/o Sri Niwas Ram, resident of village- Jalalpur, P. S. Karagahar, District- Rohtas. .. Appellant/Petitioner. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Director, the Integrated Child Development Scheme, Bihar, Patna. 3. The District Magistrate, Rohtas. 4. The District Programme Officer, Rohtas. 5. The Child Development Project Officer, Karagahar, Rohtas. 6. The Mukhiya, Rupbaitha Gram Panchayat, Karagahar, Rohtas. .. Respondents/Respondents ----------- For the petitioner : None For the respondent : Mr. Sri Gyan Prakash, A.C. to G. A. 7 --------- 2. 10.03.2010 No one appears for the appellant. However, Mr. Gyan Prakash Ojha, learned Assistant Counsel to G.A.7 is present. This appeal is directed against the order of learned Single Judge dated 2.2.2009 dismissing the writ petition of the appellant-writ petitioner assailing the order of cancellation of her appointment on the post of Anganwari Sevika dated 10.12.2008. The finding of the learned single Judge in this respect is as follows:- “…. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submission of learned Govt. counsel. It appears that the petitioner was selected as Anganwari Sewika in 2005. One Devansh Tiwary filed a complaint before the Panchayat that she had not participated in the selection process notwithstanding which she was appointed. The Gram Panchayat 2 conducted an enquiry into the complaint and found the allegation to be true leading to the impugned order. It appears on a perusal of the same that she had never appeared in the selection process and was yet selected. It is thus evident that the petitioner’s appointment was highly irregular and, once detected, could not have been allowed to continue. The impugned order cannot be faulted….” Unfortunately, when such finding was recorded by learned single Judge, the counsel for the writ- petitioner was not present and again there is a similar situation before us as well, inasmuch as today also, no one has appeared on behalf of appellant-writ petitioner to press this appeal. However, we have carefully looked into the pleadings on record including third supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the appellant-writ petitioner in this appeal wherein with the help of photocopy of proceeding book of gram sabha dated 17.3.2005 it has been sought to be projected that the impugned order passed by the District Programme Officer, Sasaram holding the selection of the appellant-writ petitioner to be vitiated and her consequential appointment on the post of Anganwari Sevika to be bad, is based on an error of record 3 inasmuch as the appellant-writ petitioner had actually appeared in the selection undertaken by Gram Sabha dated 17.3.2005. From the impugned order passed by District Programme Officer, Sasaram, it however transpires that he had personally looked into and examined the proceedings book of the concerned Gram Sabha and had found there was no trace of such selection recorded in the proceeding book of the Gram Sabha. In such a situation it would be very difficult for this Court to give any credence to a document which was never produced by the appellant-writ petitioner before the competent authority. even while placing her case in her representation dated 28.12.2008 addressed to the Collector of Rohtas district (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) in course of assailing the order of District Programme Officer. We have also in this regard carefully examined her averments in the connected writ petition and have found that the appellant writ petitioner had neither produced the documents in question as sought to be relied before us nor even had made any averment that her selection and appointment on the post of Anganbari Sevika was made in pursuance of the decision taken in the meeting of Gram Sabha held on 17.3.2005. 4 Thus a new plea, which was not even remotely raised by the appellant writ petitioner in her writ application, cannot be entertained by us for the first time in this intra-court appeal and that too on the basis of a document which did not form part of the pleadings and record of the connected writ petition. Accordingly this court is also in agreement with the submission of learned counsel for the State that in terms of guidelines on the Government on the subject of selection and appointment of Anganbari Sevika, there is a provision of appeal but the appellant- writ petitioner without exhausting the alternative remedy of filing appeal against such order of cancellation of her selection and appointment on the post of Anganwari Sevika before the Commissioner of the Division, wherein all these factual aspects could have been analyzed and decided in a more elaborate manner, had straightway moved this court by filing the connected writ petition. Therefore we also hold that the writ petition itself was not maintainable and in such circumstances the appellant-writ petitioner can also now not expect this Court exercising its appellate jurisdiction to re-appraise the materials afresh and 5 adjudicate the aforesaid purely disputed questions of facts. That being so, we find no error in the impugned order of the learned single Judge and accordingly, this appeal, being devoid of any merit must be and, is hereby dismissed but without any order as to costs. kanchan (Dipak Misra, CJ.) (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)