IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10327 of 2007 ASHA DEVI, wife of Navin Chandra Mishra, resident of Village Brahaman Toli, P.S. Nawhatta, District Saharsa. Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR 2.District Magistrate, Saharsa. 3.Deputy Development commissioner, Saharsa. 4.District Welfare Officer, Saharsa. 5.Block Development Officer, Nawhatta, Saharsa. 6.Rinku Devi, Mukhiya, wife of Sunil Singh, Gram Panchyat Kharka Telwa, Ward No.2, Nawhatta Block P.S. Nawhatta, District Saharsa. 7.Binita Ram, Child Development Project Officer, Nawhatta block, Dist. Saharsa. 8.Ranjit Singh, Punchayat Sevak of Gram Panchayat Kharka Telwa, Nawhatta Block, P.S. Nawhatta Dist. Saharsa. 9.Pritam Rani, wife of Akhilesh Kumar Verma, resident of village Brahaman Toli, P.S. Nawhatta, Dist. Saharsa. ----------- 3 1/12/2009 Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. Prayer of the petitioner in this writ application reads as follows:- “That the petitioner prays for issuance for an appropriate writ preferably a writ of Mandamus commanding the respondent authorities to initiate the proceedings afreshfor appointment of Anganwari Sevika for a newly created Anganwari Centre for harizan Tola, Ward no.2 under Telwa Gram Panchayat of nawhatta Block within the district of Saharsa after setting aside the proceedings taken on 28.6.2007 for appointment of respondent no. (9) Pritam Rani.” With reference to the aforementioned prayer though counsel for the petitioner has raised several issues while assailing the selection and appointment respondent no.9, his main thurst is that respondent no.9 is the wife of a ward member, namely, Akhilesh 2 Kumar Verma and thus ineligible in terms of the prohibition as laid down by the State Government in Clause 3 (Angah) of the relevant government circular, laying down the norms of selection and appointment on the post of Anganbari Sevika. This Court would accordingly hold that if the aforementioned contention of the petitioner is correct, there would be no reason to uphold the selection and appointment of respondent no.9 on the post of Anganbari Sevika. Such issue however being a pure question of fact, with reference to the date of advertisement/notice on which such selection was undertaken and was completed by way of appointment of respondent no. 9, has to be gone into and adjudicated by the prescribed authority i.e. Collector of the district. That being so, this Court would give liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh representation to the Collector of the district giving details of selection and appointment of respondent no.9 and if the Collector of the district, after hearing the petitioner, respondent no.9 as also representative of the concerned Gram Panchayat, is of the opinion that the appointment of respondent no.9 on account of her being wife of a ward member, was not sustainable in terms of the government circular laying down norms of the selection and appointment on the post of Anganbari Sevika, he would pass his necessary final order for removal of Respondent no. 9 and would also direct the C.D.P.O. Nawhatta Block to ensure that fresh selection is undergone in which the case of the petitioner also will be considered along with other eligible candidates so that new appointment is made 3 within a period of six months of filing of the representation of the petitioner. With the aforementioned observation/direction this application is disposed of. Abhay Kumar (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)