IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8166 of 2004 SHOBHA DEVI, wife of Ramanand Chamar, resident of village Prayag Samail, P.S. Mirganj, District Gopalganj … Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Collector, Gopalganj 3. The Child Development Project Officer, Hathua, District Gopalganj 4. The Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Khairatia, P.S. Mirganj, District Gopalganj 5. Geeta Devi, wife of Satyendra Dubey, resident of village Prayag Samail, P.S. Mirganj, District Gopalganj … Respondents. ----------- 4. 9.11.2009 No one appears for the petitioner. The prayer in this writ application of the petitioner reads as follows: “The petitioner is invoking the extra ordinary writ jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court for issuance of an appropriate writ(s), order(s), direction(s) commanding the respondent authorities to produce the resolution of the meeting of Gram Sabha and selection committee, held for the selection of Anganwari Sevika on the Angan Kendra of village Prayag Samail (Harizan Tola) of Gram Panchayat Khairatia and further for quashing the appointment/ selection of respondent no.5 on the aforesaid post and further for a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for her appointment as Anganwari sevika as 2 she belongs to Schedule Caste which is a majority section among the beneficiaries and further for any other relief(s) for which this Hon’ble Court may find the petitioner entitled in the facts and circumstances of the present case.” From the pleadings in this writ application including the counter affidavit of the official respondents it would transpire that there is a competing claim of the petitioner vis-à-vis respondent no.5 in the matter of appointment of Anganwari Sevika. While the petitioner claims that she was a member of Scheduled Caste and thus, her selection had to be made in preference to any other candidate even though she was a non-matric, the official respondents have tried to justify the selection of respondent no.5 by taking a plea that while doing so the prescribed selection procedure as has been laid down by the Welfare Department in its circulars dated 13.6.1998 and 25.9.2001 was strictly followed and adhered to in the appointment of respondent no.5. These thicketed questions of fact in the first instance could have been better 3 appreciated by the competent authority who at the relevant point of time was the Commissioner of the Division but now such power stands transferred to the Collector of the District. In that view of the matter, this Court would give liberty to the petitioner to file a compact representation as against selection and appointment of respondent no.5 and in that event the Collector after issuing notice to respondent no.5 as also the concerned Gram Panchayat and on scrutiny of the record and hearing the submissions of all the parties would pass necessary orders within a period of six months from the date of filing of such representation. With the aforementioned observations and directions, this application is disposed of. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/