IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11430 of 2007 MEERA KUMARI w/o Umesh Prasad Singh, resident of village-Nayagawn (WEST), P.S. Desari, District-Vaishali. Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR 2.The District Magistrate, Vaishali, Dist.Vaishali 3.The Subdivisional Officer Mahnar, Dist. Vaishali. 4.The Block Development Officer, Sahadai bujurg, Dist. Vaishali. 5.The Child Development Project Officer Sahai Bujurg, Dist.Vaishali. 6.Sri Rajeshwar Singh S/O not known. The Panchayat Sachiw Gram Panchayat Raj Nayagawn (West), P.S. Desari, District Vaishali. 7.Smt. Malti Devi W/o Ashok kumar Gupta, the Mukhiya Gram Panchayat Raj Nayagawn (West) P.S. Desari, District Vaishali. 8.Kumari Nitu W/O Ajit Kumar Thakur, resident of village Nayaganj, P.O.Nayaganj, P.S. Desari, Dist. Vaishali. ----------- 2 4/12/2009 Heard counsel for the parties. Prayer of the petitioner in this writ application reads as follows:- “That this writ application is being filed on behalf of the petitioner above named for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the selection list as well merit list prepared by Respondent no.6 and 7, by which respondent no.8 has been selected as a Anganbari Sewika, showing the respondent no.8 at 1st position in the merit list and did not put the name of the petitioner in the said merit list knowingly by the respondent no.6 and 7, though the petitioner has applied for the said post, and further for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing and commanding to the respondent’s authority to prepare the fresh merit list putting the name of the petitioner in that merit list and in 2 accordance of fresh merit list consider to select the candidate on the post of Anganwari Sewika for ward no.3, (Bishahar Asthan) under Gram Panchayat Raj Nayagawn (west), P.S. Desari Dist. Vaishali, and for any other appropriate writ/writs, direction/directions, order/orders as this Hon’ble Court thinks fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case.” Counsel for the petitioner, however, on perusal of the counter affidavit would submit that the issue in question has already been decided by the Collector of the district by order dated 9.1.2008 as contained in Annexure- F to the counter affidavit and therefore the petitioner may be given liberty to assail the same as the said order has been passed by the Collector of the district on 13.6.2009 holding that the selection and appointment of the petitioner was not possible in view of the provisions made in the guidelines issued by the State Government. Counsel for the petitioner, in fact, had also proceeded to make his submission for being given liberty to assail the order of the Collector by taking a plea that there are contrary findings recorded by the S.D.O. in his enquiry report as contained in Annexure-E, but then he ultimately had found the petitioner to be bound by the provisions made by the State Government requiring any order passed by the Collector of the district for its being assailed in appeal before the Commissioner of the Division. 3 That being so, since the petitioner has an effective alternative remedy against the order dated 13.6.2009 passed by the Collector of the district counsel for the petitioner is permitted to withdraw this application with a liberty to move before the Commissioner of the Division in appeal. Let it be made clear that this Court has expressed no opinion on the merits of the claim of either parties and therefore, if any appeal is filed by the petitioner against the order of Collector dated 13.6.2009 the same would be disposed of strictly in accordance with law. It must be, however, clarified that this writ application had remained pending till date, and therefore, the Commissioner of the Division would entertain the appeal and decide the same on merits without throwing it overboard and/or rejecting on the ground of limitation. With the aforesaid observations/directions this writ application is permitted to be withdrawn. Abhay Kumar (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)