IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1020 of 2009 Shobha Devi Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors ----------- 2. 28.06.2011 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State. The candidate at serial no. 1, the private Respondent no. 8, was not found fit for appointment as Anganwari Sevika on the ground of absence of requisite certificate in proof of residence as recorded in the merit panel. Those at serial 2 & 3 were ineligible as their husbands were in government service. The petitioner as the next eligible candidate came to be appointed. On as representation made by Respondent no. 8 she has been directed to be appointed and the appointment of the petitioner has been annulled. Counsel for the petitioner submits that Respondent no. 8 was not 18 years of age on the date of selection and additionally relies on the ground mentioned in the merit list rejecting the candidature of Respondent no. 8. It is submitted that if the respondents were to consider any representation of Respondent no. 8, the petitioner having been appointed as the next eligible candidate from the panel, had a right to be heard and should not have been terminated in the manner done. The pleadings in the writ application do not appear to be very clear with regard to Respondent no. 8 being underage on the date of selection. The plea of residence of Respondent no. 8 is a question of fact. If she was a resident of the concerned area but had failed to furnish proof of residence on the relevant date there can be no illegality in the appointment of the petitioner if otherwise valid. But if the Respondent no. 8 had produced the proof of residence subsequently surely the petitioner had a right to be heard before she was unseated. The petitioner has an adequate remedy before the District Magistrate in appeal against the order dated 20.11.2008 of the District Programme Officer. In view of the inadequate pleadings the counter affidavit does not deal with the issue of age of Respondent no. 8 at all in a manner to facilitate adjudication. If the petitioner files an appeal before the District Magistrate within a period of 30 days from today let the District Magistrate consider the matter in accordance with law after hearing all concerned including Respondent no. 8 and dispose it off by a reasoned and speaking order within a maximum period of four months from the date of receipt and/or presentation of such memo of appeal. The writ application stands disposed. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)