IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4814 of 2005 ANUJ KUMARI, wife of Umesh Sahani, resident of village Bhikhamchak, P.S. Bachhwara, District Begusarai … Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The District Magistrate, Begusarai 3. The District Welfare Officer, Begusarai 4. The Deputy Development Commissioner, Begusarai 5. The Sub-divisional Officer, Teghra, Begusarai 6. The Block Development Officer, Bachhwara, Begusarai 7. The C.D.P.O., Bachhwara, Begusarai 8. The Mukhiya, Bhikhamchak Gram Panchayat, Bachhwara Block, District Begusarai 9. Smt. Archana Kumari, Wife of Sri Pramod Kumar, resident of village Bhikhamchak, P.S. Bachhwara, District Begusarai … Respondents ----------- 4. 12.11.2009 Heard counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the State. In this writ application the petitioner’s earlier prayer was for setting aside the order passed by the Collector of the District directing the C.D.P.O. to request the concerned Gram Panchayat to hold a fresh meeting (Aam Sabha) of the concerned Gram Panchayat for holding selection and appointment on the post of Anganwari Sevika. During the pendency of this writ application the said post of Anganwari Sevika being claimed by the petitioner has already been filled up by the appointment of one Smt. Archana Kumari, who has been added as respondent no.9 to the writ application. 2 Despite issuance of notice and its being served on respondent no.9 no one has appeared on her behalf. In the peculiar facts of this case when the Collector of the district even without giving a personal opportunity of hearing to the petitioner had passed the impugned order, as with regard to holding a fresh Aam Sabha of Gram Panchayat for fresh selection, the grievance of the petitioner that her earlier selection made was justified and the records were only tampered by the Mukhiya can be now looked into by the Commissioner who has been of course given appellate power under the revised circular of the year 2006. This Court in fact even after being made aware that the power of such Commissioner has been vested only in terms of 2006 circular and the present case relates to the prior period, it would still direct the Divisional Commissioner, Munger to examine the grievance of the petitioner in case she would file an application before the Commissioner within a period of one month alongwith a copy of this order and the Commissioner in that case would treat such 3 representation of the petitioner as an appeal. The line of query of the Commissioner would however be confined as to whether the earlier appointment of the petitioner was valid and if he comes to a conclusion that the appointment of the petitioner despite being valid was unnecessarily terminated in the light of the direction given by the Collector of the District in the impugned order of this writ application, he would then issue notice to the private respondent no.9 and after hearing all the parties including the representative of Gram Panchayat in question would pass an order for fresh selection by directing the concerned C.D.P.O., Bachhwara to get the meeting of Gram Sabha convened wherein the case of the petitioner and respondent no.9 would be considered afresh alongwith other eligible persons. Such exercise, however, would be taken only when the Commissioner would be of the firm opinion that the removal of the petitioner from the post of Anganwari Sevika was wholly unjustified and uncalled for. In the event the Commissioner would come to a conclusion 4 that there was inherent flaw in selection and appointment of the petitioner he would not go any further and leave the matter by passing an order only to that extent. With the aforementioned observations and directions, this application is disposed of. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/