IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7188 of 2007 Sunita Kumari, Wife of Dharmendra Kumar, Resident of Village Dayalpur, P.S. Hilsa, P.O. Hilsa, District Nalanda. ------- Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Collector Nalanda, District Nalanda. 3. The Deputy Development Commissioner Nalanda, District Nalanda. 4. The District Welfare Officer Nalanda, District Nalanda. 5. C.D.P.O. Hilsa, District Nalanda. -------- Respondents ----------- 2 26.11.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. Prayer of the petitioner in this writ application reads as follows:- “1(I) For issuance of directions commanding the respondents No.5 to produce the selection letter of respondent No.6 to this Hon’ble Court. (II) For issuance of writ of certiorari for quashing the order of selection of Respondent No.6 on the post of Anganbari Sevika of Angan Bari Centre Ganpat Bigha, P.S.-Hilsa, District-Nalanda. (III) For issuance of direction commanding the respondent authorities to select the petitioner on the post of Anganbari Sevika of Angan Bari Centre Ganpat Bigha, P.S.-Hilsa, District-Nalanda.” The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is confined to the 2 comparative merits of the petitioner vis-à-vis respondent no.6 and it is the case of the petitioner that she is more meritorious than the respondent no.6. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, would fairly submit that this question of fact as per the Government Circular had to be initially raised before the Collector of the district who being the prescribed authority under the Government Circular was better positioned to decide the same. There being no dispute that the petitioner has not exhausted the remedy provided by the Government in its Circular as against any alleged flaw in the selection/appointment of Anganbari Sevika, this Court would give liberty to the petitioner to raise the same before the Collector of the district by filing a representation which will not be thrown away on account of delay keeping into account that this writ application has remained pending for a period of almost two and a half years. It is made clear that this Court has not 3 expressed any opinion on the merits of this case and the claim of the petitioner as with regard to her being more meritorious than respondent no.6 and therefore, it will be open for the Collector of the district to examine the grievance of the petitioner in the light of the Government Circular and pass any appropriate order but after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the respondent no.6 and the representative of the concerned Gram Panchayat. With the aforementioned observations, this application is disposed of. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)