IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3373 of 2005 LALITA KUMARI, wife of Sanjay Patel, resident of village Sanauti, P.O. Bargaun, P.S. Ratwara, District Madhepura … Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through Director, Social Welfare, Government of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna 2. Director, Social Welfare, Government of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna 3. Deputy Director (Welfare) Saharsa Division, Saharsa 4. District Welfare Officer, Madhepura 5. Child Development Officer, Madhepura 6. Pinkey Devi, wife of Raj Kishore Sah, resident of village Bargaun, P.S. Ratwara, P.O. Bargaon, District Madhepura 7. Block Development Officer, Alam Nagar, district Madhepura … Respondents. ----------- 4. 12.11.2009 Heard counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the State. The prayer in this writ application of the petitioner reads as follows: “(a) For quashing of order of appointment issued in favour of respondent no.6, by Block Development Officer Alam Nagar for the post of „Anganwari Sevika‟ of Sanauti Anganwari Centre under Bargaon Panchayat. It is stated that appointment of respondent no.6 has been made in complete violation of Rules prescribed by Welfare Department of Government of Bihar vide circular dated 13.6.1998 (Annexure 10). The petitioner further prays before this Hon‟ble Court that order of 2 appointment of respondent no.6, be called for and be quashed. (b) The petitioner also prays for consideration of her case for appointment on the post of „Anganwari Sevika‟ of Sanauti Anganwari Center under Bargaon Panchayat.” With reference to the aforementioned relief, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner in terms of the circular of the State Government had filed a representation as against the selection and appointment of respondent no.6, but then the issue had remained pending before the Collector of the District, inasmuch as he did not pass any order. No counter affidavit has been filed by the official respondents which however can not deter this Court in disposing of this writ application inasmuch as by now the official respondents have literally made it as a regular feature and consistent practice of not even answering the averments made in the writ application. This writ application having remained pending for a period of 4½ 3 (four and half) years before this Court cannot be kept pending for further period only in anticipation of filing of the counter affidavit. That being so, when the private respondent no.6, also despite service of notice on her, has remained unrepresented in absence of her counsel and no counter affidavit has been also filed on her behalf, this Court in stead of directly interfering with the selection and appointment of respondent no.6 would deem it expedient to remit the matter back to the Collector of the District, who in terms of a fresh representation filed by the petitioner alongwith a copy of this order would pass necessary orders in terms of the relevant policy/guideline/circular issued by the State Government in vogue at the time of appointment of respondent no.6, within a period of six months from the date of filing of such a representation by the petitioner. It goes without saying that if any adverse decision would be taken affecting interest of either the petitioner or respondent no.6 the Collector will not only 4 give an opportunity of hearing to them but would also pass a reasoned order. The aggrieved person, whether if he the petitioner or Respondent no. 6, will also have the liberty to move the divisional Commissioner, the appellate authority. With the aforementioned observations and direction, this application is disposed of. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/