IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6046 of 2007 LALITA KUMARI wife of Surendra Mandal, resident of village Uchchadiha, Panchayat Pair, Prakhand and P.S.Dhoraiya, District Banka. Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR 2.The District Magistrate, Banka. 3.The District Welfare Officer, Banka. 4.The Circle Officer, Rajoun Incharge of C.D.P.O. Dhoraiya, P.S. Dhoraiya, District Banka. 5.Abilasha kumari (Devi) wife of Barun Mehta, resident of village Uchchadiha, Prakhand and P.S. Ddhoraiya. District Banka. ----------- 2 24/11/2009 Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. Prayer of the petitioner in this writ application reads as follows:- “That this application is being filed for the issuance of an appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, or direction/directions in the nature of writ of mandamus for calling upon the respondents the proper enquiry with regard to the selection of Aganbari Sevika on a forged Certificate procured by the respondent no.6 be not initiated despite the several representation or the ahamalies adopted by the officer concern, being brought to the notice by the petitioner and after enquiry if found true the selection of respondent no.6 be terned as void abinitio.” Counsel for the petitioner with reference to the aforementioned relief would submit that during pendency of this writ application the respondents themselves had found that the selection and appointment of respondent no.6 was vitiated on account of forgery in her educational certificates and in fact the C.D.P.O. Dhoraiya, District Banka had filed Dhoraiya P.S. Case No. 45 of 2008 dated 12.5.2008 as against respondent no.6. Counsel for the petitioner 2 therefore would submit that now when vacancy on the post of Anganbari Sevika account of removal of respondent no.6 from the said post in an admitted fact, which was brought into notice of the authorities by none else but the petitioner herself and that too during the pendency of this writ application, this Court may issue necessary direction for appointment of the petitioner on the aforesaid vacant post. Counsel for the State has no instruction and in fact has not filed any counter affidavit. Considering the aforementioned subsequent development, this Court would direct the official respondents to ensure that as and when selection and appointment on the vacant post on account of removal of respondent no.6 on the post of Anganbari Sevika is conducted the case of the petitioner would also be considered along with other eligible candidates in accordance with the guideline issued by the State Government on the subject without subjecting to her to disqualification on the ground of her age. With the aforementioned observation/direction this application is disposed of. Abhay Kumar (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)