IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8519 of 2007 NEETA KUMARI, w/o Sri Akhilesh Kumar, resident of Mohalla- Bajrangbag, P. S.- Hilsa, District- Nalanda… Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. District Magistrate, Nalanda. 3. Sub Divisional Officer, Hilsa, Nalanda 4. Child Development Project Officer, Hilsa, Nalanda. 5. Arun Singh, Ward Commissioner, Ward No. 3, Hilsa, Nalanda 6. Saroj Kumari, Assistant Teacher, Primary School, Krishnapur, Hilsa, District- Nalanda. 7. Bigan Ravidas, Member Aganwari Selection Committee, Hilsa. 8. Sub Divisional Agriculture Officer, Hilsa, Nalanda. 9. Nazir, Child Development Project Office, Hilsa, District Nalanda. 10. Aganwari Selection Committee, Hilsa through its Secretary. 11. Secretary, Aganwari Selection Committee, Hilsa. … Respondents. ----------- 2. 01.12.2009. Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ application reads as follows:- “1. That this application is directed for a direction to issue appointment letter to the petitioner for the post of Anganbari Sevika, Miyanbigha Centre, Ward No. 3, Hilsa Nagar Panchayat and to restrain the respondents from making any fresh appointment.” With reference to the aforementioned reliefs, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there is an apparent anomaly in the rejection of selection and consequential appointment of 2 the petitioner on the post of Aganwari Sevika inasmuch as from the counter- affidavit now it would be established that there was an interpolation and change of decision in the concerned Aam Sabha of Gram Panchayat. Counsel would also submit that as a matter of fact, attention of the prescribed authority, the Collector of the District, was also drawn towards this fact as would be evident from perusal of Annexure-5 read with paragraph 11 of the writ application but the Collector still has not done the needful as a result whereof this writ application had to be filed. Counsel for the State on the other hand, would submit that the matter was looked into and it was found that the selection of Aganwari Sevika in the concerned Gram Panchayat was made in accordance with guidelines issued by the Government of Bihar. In the opinion of this court, such bald stand taken by the official respondents in the counter affidavit cannot be accepted 3 inasmuch as when the circular of the State Government prescribes the Collector of the District to look into such cases of anomaly in selection and appointment of Aganbari Sewika the Collector of the District is not only obliged to enquire into the whole aspect but to dispose of the representation filed before him by the aggrieved candidate, by a reasoned order. Thus in no view of the matter it would be sufficient to describe them as baseless or imaginary allegation as has been done in the counter affidavit in paragraph 10 while answering to the averments made with regard to the facts stated in the representation of the petitioner vide paragraph 11 of the writ application. That being so, this court would direct the Collector of the District to look into the grievance of the petitioner as specifically raised in his representation contained in Annexure-5 to this writ application and dispose of the same by a reasoned order strictly in accordance with the provision made in the circular of the 4 State Government preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that this court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and therefore it would be open to the Collector of the District to pass any appropriate order but of course after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and any other person who may have been now selected and appointed on the post of Aganwari Sevika as also the representative of concerned Gram Panchayat. With the aforementioned observations and directions, this writ application is disposed of. kanchan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)