IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4847 of 2004 BABITA DEVI, wife of Sri Ranjeet Kumar, resident of village Rampur Mango, Panchayat Kalhua, P.S. Saraiya, District Muzaffarpur … Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur, District Muzaffarpur 3. The Child Development Project Officer, Saraiya, District Muzaffarpur 4. The Block Development Officer, Saraiya, District Muzaffarpur 5. Sri Jang Bahadur Rai, fathers name not known, present Mukhiya of Gram Panchayat Raj, Kolhua, P.S. Saraiya, District Muzaffarpur 6. Smt. Indu Devi, wife of Raju Rai, resident of village Rampur Mango, Panchayat Kolhua, P.S. Saraiya, District Muzaffarpur … Respondents. ----------- 3. 9.11.2009 Heard counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the private respondent as also the State and its authorities. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ application while assailing the appointment of respondent no.6 reads as follows: “(i) For issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondent authorities to enquire the selection process of Aaganwari Centre No. 57 Rampur Mango Chamar Tola within the Panchayat of Kolhua and take proper decision on the selection held on 3.11.2003. (ii) For issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus 2 commanding and directing the respondent authorities to select the petitioner and give appointment letter on the post of Aanganwari Sevika in Centre of Rampur Mango, Centre No. 57.” Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner had sought alternative remedy as provided by the State Government in its circulars, as against selection of respondent no.6 but it was unfortunate on the part of the petitioner to find that her representation against the selection of respondent no.6 remained unanswered as a result whereof she had to move this Court for the aforementioned relief. Counsel for the private respondent, on the other hand, would submit that the petitioner in fact did not qualify for such selection, inasmuch she was a daughter of the village who is not entitled or eligible to be appointed as Anganwari Sevika. Counsel for the private respondent, however, would fairly concede that this has been stated by him on oral instruction and no counter affidavit has been filed to this effect. 3 Counsel for the petitioner to substantiate the case of the petitioner would, however, also take a plea that respondent no.6 also was/is not eligible, inasmuch as she does not belong to the group of below poverty line (BPL) who alone are entitled to be appointed on the post of Anganwari Sevika. In the opinion of this Court a dispute whether the petitioner being eligible was wrongfully denied her appointment or the private respondent despite being not eligible for such selection on the post of Anganbari Sevika could have been gone into effectively by the fact finding authority as prescribed by the State Government in its circulars and in fact for that purpose the petitioner had also moved such authority by filing representations, as contained in Annexures 3 and 4 but the same had remained unanswered. In that view of the matter, this Court would direct the Collector of the District to examine the grievance of the petitioner and in order to expedite the matter the petitioner is given liberty to 4 file a fresh representation enclosing her earlier representations as also a copy of this order, whereafter the Collector of the District having extended an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, respondent no.6 and representative of Gram Panchayat would pass an appropriate order preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. With the aforementioned observations and directions, this application is disposed of. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/