IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.222 of 2011 Sangeeta Kumari, w/o Ramesh Kumar of Village Desari, P.O. and P.S. Desari, District Vaishali .. Petitioner-Appellant Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Principal Secretary, Welfare Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 2. The Divisional Commissioner, Tirhut, Division, Muzaffarpur 3. The District Magistrate, Vaishali, Hajipur 4. The District Programme Officer, Distt-Vaishali, Hajipur 5. The Child Development Project Officer, Desari, Vaishali 6. The Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Raj Desari, Desari Block, Vaishali 7. The Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Raj Desari, Desari Block, Vaishali 8. Smt. Urmila Kumari, Wife of Arum Kumar Chaudhary of village P.O. and P.S. Desarai, District Vaishali .. Respondents-Respondents ----------- For the appellant Mr. Balmukund Prasad Sinha, Advocate For the Respondent No.8 Mr. Rajendra Nath Jha, Advocate Mr. Rakesh Kumar Singh, Advocate Mr. Navjot Yeshu, Advocate For the State Mr. K. B. Singh, Advocate 3/- 31.03.2011 Heard. For the reasons mentioned in the application for limitation, the same is allowed, and the delay in filing of this appeal is condoned. The present appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 02.11.2011 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 4667 of 2010. The petitioner is aggrieved by the appointment of private respondent-8 as Anganbari Sewika in the Desri Panchayat. 2 The main contention is that by the decision in the Aam Sabha held on 30.03.2007, respondent no.8 was appointed where the petitioner was also very much present in the said Aam Sabha and put her signature in the attendance register. But, however, she has questioned the appointment of Respondent no.8 on the ground that she belongs to the Extremely Backward Class category whereas respondent no.8 belongs to a Scheduled Caste category. It is also further contended before the learned Single Judge that she has made a representation on 30.08.2007 before the C.D.P.O. The said representation has not been annexed with the record of this case. It is also further contended that there is no mandatory condition requiring the physical presence of the candidate at the Aam Sabha. The counsel for the respondent no.8 has pointed out that the appellant was not present in the Aam Sabha and she has never made any representation. An observation has been made by the learned Single Judge in the order that the appellant was well acknowledged with the 3 representation dated 30.08.2007 which was never placed by her in her appeal filed before the Commissioner. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has contended that the matter may be remanded back to the respondent no.2 for looking into the matter afresh. But, however, as observed by learned Single Judge, we are of the opinion that the matter relates to appointment of Anganbari Sewika, which is a scheme under the Central Government and that the appellant has chosen to question the appointment of respondent no.8 merely after a period of one year stating that she has put her signature in the attendance register while she was not present in the Aam Sabha. But, however, the questions with regard to her presence in Aam Sabha and also her signature in the attendance register are purely questions of fact. More so she has herself accepted before learned Single Judge that she has not made any representation. There was no material available to substantiate that she made a representation on 30.08.2007 which is also 4 a pure question of fact which cannot be interfered with under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. With the above observation, the L.P.A stands dismissed. Ashwini/- (T. Meena Kumari, J.) (Akhilesh Chandra, J.)